Not upheld: Poor service in KYC process and account blocking; unclear and conflicting information provision complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

B, a limited company, complained to the FOS about Santander's handling of its KYC process and the subsequent blocking of B's business account. During a 2 September 2025 call, Santander provided Mr M (B's director) with conflicting and unclear information about required documentation, despite his repeated attempts to clarify requirements. When Mr M failed to provide documents by 10 September, Santander blocked the account. However, once a different advisor provided clear instructions on 10 September, Mr M supplied all required documents within hours, and the account was unblocked on 15 September. The ombudsman found Santander's service on 2 September was poor and the block was avoidable, but upheld Santander's £250 compensation offer as fair, rejecting Mr M's claim for £3,000 based on lost earning potential.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Santander provided poor service during the 2 September call by giving conflicting and unclear information about KYC requirements, despite Mr M's repeated attempts to clarify what was needed. The ombudsman concluded that had Santander provided clear instructions initially, the account block would likely never have occurred, as Mr M promptly provided all required documents within hours once clearly explained on 10 September. However, the ombudsman determined that the impact was limited to inconvenience rather than financial loss, as no wages were delayed and Mr M had no proven lost earnings. The ombudsman rejected the claim for compensation based on hourly rates, finding that only avoidable calls from 2 September onwards should be considered. The ombudsman also found that Mr M was not mocked on the 10 September call and that Santander's complaint handling procedures, while potentially deficient, fell outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction under FCA DISP rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website