Upheld: account administration error and poor customer service complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Lloyds Bank PLC changed his credit card account title without his knowledge or consent in December 2024 and refused to revert the change when he discovered it in May 2025. During a call with Lloyds, the agent was confused about whether Mr H had made changes to another account and cited account terms and conditions as a reason for refusing to help. Mr H was left on hold for extended periods and the agent could not explain the relevant terms. Lloyds only agreed to revert the change after the Financial Ombudsman Service intervened, nearly a year after the original request. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that while there was confusion during the call, Mr H's request to revert the change was clear and straightforward, and Lloyds should have assisted much sooner.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while there was confusion during the call, with the agent believing Mr H had updated his title on another account and didn't want it to apply to the Lloyds account, Mr H was reasonably clear that he simply wanted the change reverted. The agent could have done more to understand Mr H's request and explain things clearly. Although the agent cited terms and conditions as a barrier, the ombudsman found no reason why Lloyds couldn't have assisted with the reversion sooner, as it has now done. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr H's frustration about the call handling, the long hold times, and the agent's inability to provide details about the terms and conditions cited. While the agent and manager offered Mr H options to resolve the matter himself (updating details online or in branch), the ombudsman found it fair that Mr H shouldn't have been required to do so when he didn't make the original change. The ombudsman was satisfied that Lloyds' reversion of the title effectively put things right, though it was disappointing this only occurred after FOS intervention nearly a year later.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website