Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Tide Platform Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6003461 of 2025-12-18T00:00:00+00:00. Account closure without notice complaint against Tide Platform Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6003461 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-12-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Tide Platform Limited |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Account closure without notice |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered. |
Summary
Mr M, director of limited company A, complained that Tide blocked A's business account without proper explanation and failed to release retained funds. Tide initiated an account review in August 2024, suspended the account in September 2024, and closed it in October 2024, citing regulatory requirements for the fund retention. The ombudsman found that Tide acted in accordance with its legal and regulatory obligations based on confidential evidence and was not obligated to provide detailed explanations or release timescales. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that financial businesses in the UK are strictly regulated and must carry out ongoing monitoring of business relationships, which sometimes requires account restrictions or closures. Tide provided confidential evidence satisfying the ombudsman that the account review and fund retention were justified and in line with legal and regulatory obligations. The ombudsman noted that Tide was under no obligation to provide detailed explanations or timescales for fund release. Additionally, since A is a limited company, it cannot suffer distress, so compensation for personal inconvenience to Mr M could not be awarded.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Tide Platform Limited, all decisions | 23 | 33% |
| Account closure without notice, all decisions | 11,650 | 19% |
| Current account, all decisions | 48,245 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website