Partially upheld: unreasonable account restrictions and denial of access to funds complaint against SumUp Payments Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Z complained that SumUp Payments Limited unreasonably denied access to merchant accounts and allowed a former director to transact on the account after being removed as director. Mr H became director in March 2025 and reported concerns about unauthorised transfers by the former director. SumUp blocked both accounts and refused access without official authority. The ombudsman found SumUp's initial block reasonable but maintained too long—by 21 May 2025, Mr H's authority was clear from Companies House records. The former director's transactions were authorised under the account mandate as they had not been formally removed. SumUp was directed to pay 8% simple interest on held funds from 21 May 2025 and £100 compensation for delays and unclear communication.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While SumUp was reasonable to initially block the accounts due to fraud concerns reported by Mr H, the block was maintained too long. By 21 May 2025, Companies House records clearly showed Mr H was authorised to act for Z, and there was no allegation Mr H was involved in the disputed transfers or other concerns justifying continued restriction. The former director's transactions were authorised under the account mandate as they had not been formally removed from the account by Z. It is the account holder's responsibility to update mandates with the provider.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website