Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs H complained that Lloyds failed to inform her that she could not withdraw funds from a Junior Cash ISA account opened in 2015 until her daughter turned 18. When she attempted to withdraw funds in June 2025, she received conflicting information about the process and was ultimately told withdrawals were not permitted. Lloyds argued the account was opened online with terms and conditions clearly stating the withdrawal restriction, which Mrs H had to accept before opening. The ombudsman, applying the balance of probabilities and considering contemporaneous records, found it more likely the account was opened online and that Mrs H had been presented with the necessary information. The ombudsman upheld Lloyds' £125 payment for the conflicting information provided in 2025 as fair compensation and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to resolve the conflicting accounts of how the account was opened. Given that the account opening record was contemporaneous evidence, that Junior ISAs are a well-known product with the withdrawal restriction as a key feature, that it would be unlikely such a restriction would not be mentioned in a branch opening, and that Mrs H's memory of events over 10 years ago may have faded or conflated with the 2013 account opening, the ombudsman found it more likely the account was opened online. Therefore, Mrs H would have been presented with and required to accept the terms and conditions containing the withdrawal restriction. The conflicting information in 2025 was acknowledged as poor service, but the £125 payment was proportionate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website