Veste

Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6365216 of 2026-07-06T00:00:00+00:00. Account closure without notice complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6365216
Decision date2026-07-06T00:00:00+00:00
FirmHSBC UK Bank Plc
ProductPersonal loan
Claim typeAccount closure without notice
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone ordered. The ombudsman reminded HSBC of its obligations to exercise forbearance in collecting the remaining balance if Mr R is experiencing financial difficulties.

Summary

Mr R complained that HSBC unfairly closed his Flexiloan account, which he had held since 2012. HSBC made a bank-wide commercial decision to discontinue the Flexiloan product and sent notification emails to Mr R on 13 June 2025 and 28 July 2025, providing over two months' notice before the 17 September 2025 closure date. Mr R did not receive these emails because he had changed his email address without informing HSBC, despite email being his stated preferred contact method. The ombudsman found HSBC acted fairly by providing reasonable notice through Mr R's preferred communication channel and that Mr R was responsible for keeping his contact details updated. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Banks have commercial discretion to decide whether to continue providing account services. HSBC provided over two months' notice of closure, exceeding the reasonable two-month notice period expected for long-standing accounts. The terms and conditions permitted HSBC to close the account with at least 30 days' notice. HSBC sent notifications to Mr R's preferred contact method (email) at the address on record. Mr R's failure to update his email address was his responsibility, not HSBC's fault. Therefore, HSBC acted fairly and did nothing wrong.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
HSBC UK Bank Plc, all decisions7,60423%
Account closure without notice, all decisions11,91318%
Personal loan, all decisions22,88529%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website