Veste

Not upheld: account blocking following fraud allegation complaint against Santander UK Plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6272784 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. account blocking following fraud allegation complaint against Santander UK Plc. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6272784
Decision date2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00
FirmSantander UK Plc
ProductCurrent account
Claim typeaccount blocking following fraud allegation
OutcomeNot upheld
Remedy£50 compensation already paid by Santander, which the ombudsman considered fair and reasonable.

Summary

Mx W complained that Santander unfairly blocked their account following a fraud allegation related to a dispute with a friend over a web domain. Santander requested evidence of Mx W's entitlement to the payments received, and once Mx W provided documentation and visited a branch, the block was removed. Santander paid £50 compensation for the inconvenience. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that Santander had legal and regulatory obligations to review fraud allegations and acted reasonably in blocking the account as a standard procedure, acting quickly to restore access once evidence was provided.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Santander had legal and regulatory obligations to review fraud allegations and that blocking the account was a standard procedure. The ombudsman accepted that it was not unreasonable for Santander to block the account given the fraud allegation received. The ombudsman noted that Santander acted quickly to restore access once necessary evidence was provided and that the £50 compensation appropriately recognised the distress and inconvenience caused. The ombudsman declined to review Santander's policies and processes, noting this is the role of the regulator, and instead assessed whether mistakes were made and if Santander responded fairly and reasonably.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Santander UK Plc, all decisions14,44522%
Current account, all decisions45,59019%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website