Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Metro Bank PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6423235 of 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00. Account closure without notice complaint against Metro Bank PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6423235 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Metro Bank PLC |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Account closure without notice |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. Complaint not upheld. |
Summary
Mr T complained about Metro Bank's decision to close his account following discovery of adverse data. Metro Bank restricted the account from receiving funds and provided notice of closure on 5 January 2026, with the account closing on 12 January 2026. Mr T disputed receiving notice and claimed his account was already closed when he called on 4 January 2026. The ombudsman found that Metro Bank's terms and conditions permitted the closure, that proper seven days' notice was given via letter and email on 5 January 2026, and that Mr T's phone call was actually on 5 January 2026 when he was informed of the closure. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Metro Bank's terms and conditions explicitly permit account closure for various reasons including when adverse data is discovered. The ombudsman was satisfied that Mr T's circumstances met at least one of the stated grounds for closure. The ombudsman verified that proper notice was given through both letter and email on 5 January 2026, providing seven days' notice before the 12 January 2026 closure date. Although Mr T was abroad and may not have received the letter, the email was confirmed to have been correctly sent, and Mr T was informed during his phone call on 5 January 2026.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Metro Bank PLC, all decisions | 1,230 | 30% |
| Account closure without notice, all decisions | 11,926 | 18% |
| Current account, all decisions | 52,014 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website