Veste

Not upheld: account closure without adequate notice and explanation complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6224044 of 2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00. account closure without adequate notice and explanation complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6224044
Decision date2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00
FirmLloyds Bank PLC
ProductCredit card
Claim typeaccount closure without adequate notice and explanation
OutcomeNot upheld
Remedy£30 compensation already paid by Lloyds Bank for upset caused by incorrect cashback information and missed notification; cashback to be applied to account.

Summary

Mr W complained that Lloyds Bank closed his credit card account without notice and not in line with the account terms and conditions, just two days after opening it. The account was closed following further checks by Lloyds Bank including review of credit reference and fraud prevention agency information. Mr W also complained about being incorrectly told he was ineligible for cashback and not receiving a notification text message. Lloyds Bank paid £30 compensation and confirmed the cashback would be applied. The ombudsman found that Lloyds Bank acted within its contractual rights and did not treat Mr W unfairly, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Lloyds Bank had the contractual right to close the account and that information received from post-opening checks provided a legitimate basis for closure as a precautionary security measure. While the ombudsman acknowledged Mr W's frustration at not receiving detailed reasons, it found that Lloyds Bank had given sufficient reason for the closure and had not acted outside its terms and conditions or treated Mr W unfairly. The ombudsman also found the £30 compensation for the cashback error and missed notification to be reasonable.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Lloyds Bank PLC, all decisions19,82616%
Credit card, all decisions25,21122%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website