Veste

Not upheld: account closure, application decline, lending decline, commercial discretion complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6210601 of 2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00. account closure, application decline, lending decline, commercial discretion complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6210601
Decision date2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00
FirmHSBC UK Bank Plc
Productbusiness banking and lending
Claim typeaccount closure, application decline, lending decline, commercial discretion
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

A company (A) complained that HSBC UK Bank Plc unfairly closed its business account and declined applications for new accounts and lending. HSBC provided 60 days' notice of closure but restricted account access during a regulatory review period. A subsequently applied for new accounts and lending in August 2025, both of which were declined. The ombudsman found that HSBC acted fairly in all respects, complying with regulatory obligations regarding transaction verification and exercising legitimate commercial discretion in account closure and lending decisions. The ombudsman rejected arguments that statutory provisions should override HSBC's commercial discretion and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Banks are entitled to end business relationships fairly and in line with terms and conditions, provided reasonable notice is given. HSBC provided 60 days' notice and met the criteria for immediate closure under its terms. Banks have commercial discretion regarding account provision and lending decisions and are not obliged to disclose reasons for declining applications. The ombudsman found HSBC's actions complied with regulatory obligations and were applied fairly. The statutory provisions cited by Mr G do not override HSBC's commercial discretion to set policies and risk criteria.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
HSBC UK Bank Plc, all decisions7,50723%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website