Not upheld: account restrictions and contact procedures during regulatory review complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

D, a limited company, had its bank account restricted by HSBC during a Safeguard review initiated to gather updated information for regulatory compliance. HSBC attempted to contact D multiple times via SmartServe messages, telephone calls, and a standard post letter over several months, but received no response. Mr A, acting on behalf of D, complained that he was unaware of these contact attempts and that the account restrictions caused significant business disruption. The ombudsman found that HSBC's contact attempts were reasonable and proportionate, that the account restrictions were a fair response to non-engagement, and that no error occurred in HSBC's conduct. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that HSBC was entitled to conduct the Safeguard review as a regulatory requirement and that the multiple contact attempts across different channels (SmartServe, telephone, and post) over an extended period constituted a reasonable and proportionate effort. The ombudsman rejected arguments that SmartServe messages were unreasonable, that voicemail should have been left, that the letter addressing was inappropriate, or that tracked delivery was required. The ombudsman concluded that HSBC's actions were fair and reasonable and that account restrictions were a proportionate step to prompt engagement when no response was received despite repeated attempts.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website