Upheld: poor customer service, misinformation regarding fraud reporting procedure, account blocking complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5995426 of 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00. poor customer service, misinformation regarding fraud reporting procedure, account blocking complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5995426 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lloyds Bank PLC |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | poor customer service, misinformation regarding fraud reporting procedure, account blocking |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Lloyds Bank PLC directed to pay Miss M total compensation of £150 (less any compensation already paid). £75 has already been paid; an additional £75 should be paid or the full £150 if the original payment was reversed. |
Summary
Miss M complained that Lloyds Bank PLC discriminated against her and caused inconvenience when she reported fraud on 11 September 2025. The first adviser incorrectly told Miss M she had to visit a branch to report the fraud and raise a complaint, and her account was blocked for identity verification purposes. Miss M had a medical appointment at 10:30 requiring fasting, but had to eat due to the branch visit requirement, preventing her attendance. The second adviser resolved the matter within the hour. Lloyds offered £75 compensation, which an investigator recommended increasing to £150. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding poor customer service and misinformation, though rejecting the discrimination claim as only courts can determine such breaches. The ombudsman awarded £150 compensation, recognizing the greater impact on Miss M due to her health condition, though noting Lloyds was unaware of her special circumstances at the time.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Lloyds' initial instruction for Miss M to visit a branch was poor customer service and misinformation. While the account block was a reasonable protective measure lasting only just over an hour, the first adviser could have done more to verify Miss M's identity as the second adviser did. Although Lloyds was unaware of Miss M's medical appointment and health condition at the time, the ombudsman considered that the poor service had a greater impact on Miss M due to her special circumstances. The ombudsman rejected the discrimination claim as only courts can determine breaches of the Equality Act 2010, but found Lloyds had not acted fairly and reasonably. The ombudsman concluded that £75 compensation was too low given the impact on Miss M, and agreed with the investigator's recommendation of £150.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lloyds Bank PLC, all decisions | 19,826 | 16% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website