Veste

Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against TSB Bank plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5977798 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Account closure without notice complaint against TSB Bank plc. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5977798
Decision date2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00
FirmTSB Bank plc
ProductCurrent account
Claim typeAccount closure without notice
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. No compensation or further action ordered.

Summary

J, a limited company represented by its director Mr J, complained that TSB Bank plc unfairly closed its business account without adequate explanation or notice. Mr J claimed he did not receive the closure letter and that TSB should have used alternative contact methods. TSB provided 60 days' notice and explained the closure was justified under the account terms and regulatory compliance requirements. The ombudsman found that TSB was complying with UK regulatory obligations regarding transaction verification, acted fairly in reviewing and closing the account, and was not obliged to provide reasons or reinstate the account. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

UK legislation places extensive obligations on regulated financial institutions to verify transaction purposes and fund origins. TSB was entitled to review the account to ensure compliance with these regulatory requirements. The account terms and conditions permitted TSB to review and close the account. TSB acted fairly in reaching its decision, provided proper notice, and was not obliged to disclose the basis for closure or provide reasons. The ombudsman found no evidence of improper reasons, unfair bias, or unlawful discrimination. While the letter may not have been received by Mr J, TSB provided evidence it was sent to the correct address, and the bank was not responsible for postal delivery failures.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
TSB Bank plc, all decisions3,58226%
Account closure without notice, all decisions11,92618%
Current account, all decisions52,01419%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website