Not upheld: service failure, irresponsible account management, poor handling of customer relocation complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6342394 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. service failure, irresponsible account management, poor handling of customer relocation complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6342394 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lloyds Bank PLC |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | service failure, irresponsible account management, poor handling of customer relocation |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Lloyds Bank PLC should pay Ms H an additional £170 (total compensation of £500) to resolve the complaint. Lloyds had already paid £80 initially and £250 subsequently, totalling £330, so the additional £170 brings the total to £500. |
Summary
Ms H complained about Lloyds Bank PLC's handling of her current account upgrade in October 2025 before moving abroad. Lloyds incorrectly told her she wouldn't need a new debit card, then sent the replacement to an old UK address and cancelled her working card while she was abroad, leaving her without payment access for about a week and without a functioning debit card for two months. The ombudsman found Lloyds made multiple mistakes causing considerable distress and inconvenience, but upheld Lloyds' offer of £500 total compensation as fair and reasonable, declining to award additional compensation for consequences outside Lloyds' control such as third-party business decisions or Ms H's personal circumstances.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman acknowledged that Lloyds made multiple mistakes that caused Ms H considerable distress and inconvenience over a two-month period, including being without access to money for about a week and without a working debit card for two months. However, the ombudsman determined that £500 total compensation was fair and reasonable for the distress, upset, worry, and significant inconvenience caused by Lloyds' errors. The ombudsman declined to hold Lloyds responsible for matters outside its control, such as the impact of third-party decisions (the accommodation business), costs related to transporting pets, or Ms H's decision to give up possessions. The ombudsman found that while Lloyds' actions had a significant impact on Ms H, it would not be fair to award compensation for consequences that were not directly caused by Lloyds' controllable actions.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lloyds Bank PLC, all decisions | 19,826 | 16% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website