DRN-5741543

The complaint Mr H complains Barclays Bank UK PLC unfairly closed his account and provided him with poor service. Mr H say this resulted in serious distress and impacted his overall financial situation. What happened The facts of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I will only provide a summary of the key points. Mr H held a basic bank account with Barclays, and February 2025 block were placed on the account following an internal review. In March 2025 Barclays issued a notice to close. This explained the account would close in May 2025 – and Mr H would need to make alterative banking arrangements. No specific details were provided regarding the reason for the closure decision. Prior to the closure, Mr H had submitted a chargeback claim. Whilst this was reviewed Mr H was given a temporary credit. However, this was then deducted from the account as the chargeback claim was not successful. Mr H raised a formal complaint regarding his treatment by Barclays. Mr H stated the removal of his account and funds within it was unfair, and Barclays had failed to provide him with adequate access to his account. Mr H highlighted his challenging personal circumstances and explained Barclays had failed to take them into account when dealing with his concerns. Mr H referred to his vulnerabilities, and stated he had to attend branch many times which caused him stress and inconvenience. In its review of Mr H’s complaint Barclays explained its review and closure of the account was fair and in keeping with the account terms and its regulatory duties. However, it accepted that the service it provided fell below reasonable standards. Barclays offered Mr H £75 – which included a refund of the amount it had removed as part of the chargeback claim, in recognition of its service failings. Unhappy with this response Mr H referred his complaint to this service. An Investigator reviewed the complaint, and in summary, made the following findings: • Barclays carried out the account review and closure in line with its legal and regulatory obligations. It also doesn’t have to provide specific reasons for the action it took. • The account was closed in line with the account terms and conditions. • The compensation offered by Barclays is fair, and it offered reasonable support to Mr H in light of his needs. Mr H remained unhappy and maintained that he had been treated unfairly, and more compensation was due to him. As no agreement could be reached, the case has been referred to me – an ombudsman – for a final decision.

-- 1 of 4 --

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I appreciate Mr H was disappointed by the investigator’s opinion. I’d like to reassure Mr H that I’ve considered the whole file and what he has said. But I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t mention any specific point, it’s not because I failed to take it on board and think about it, but because I don’t think I need to comment on it to reach what I think is a fair and reasonable outcome. No discourtesy is intended by me in taking this approach. It simply reflects our role as an informal alternative to the courts. As a UK financial business, Barclays is strictly regulated and must take certain actions in order to meet its legal and regulatory obligations. It’s also required to carry out ongoing monitoring of an existing business relationship. This includes establishing the purpose and intended nature of transactions as well as the origin of funds, and there may be penalties if they don’t. That sometimes means Barclays needs to restrict, or in some cases go as far as closing, customers’ accounts. I would add too that our rules allow us to receive evidence in confidence. We may treat evidence from financial businesses as confidential for a number of reasons – for example, if it contains information about other customers, security information or commercially sensitive information. It’s then for me to decide whether it’s fair to rely on evidence that only one party has seen. It’s not a one-sided rule; either party to a complaint can submit evidence in confidence if they wish to, and we’ll then decide if it’s fair to rely on it. Here, the information is sensitive and on balance I don’t believe it should be disclosed. But it’s also clearly material to the issue of whether Barclays has treated Mr H fairly. So, I’m persuaded I should take it into account when deciding the outcome of the complaint. Having carefully considered this evidence, I’m satisfied Barclays took these actions in line with the obligations it must adhere to. The terms and conditions of Mr H’s account also allow Barclays to review accounts to ensure it can meet its legal obligations and extensive regulatory duties. This means I don’t find Barclays acted unfairly in its decision to review Mr H’s account. Barclays’ review of the account led to its ultimate decision to close it. I understand Mr H feel this decision was unfair. Mr H says Barclays has failed to give him an explanation regarding this and given his vulnerabilities its treatment of him was unfair. As explained above, I can’t disclose the specific reasons provided to this service in confidence for the decision made by Barclays. I can however assure Mr H that Barclays has carried out a detailed and extensive review – which considered various issues, and it has acted in line with its duties before making this decision. Ultimately, Barclays is entitled to set their own policies and part of that will form their risk criteria. It is not in my remit to say what policies or risk appetite Barclays should have in place. I can however, while considering the circumstances of individual complaints, decide whether I think customers have been treated fairly. As long as they reach their decisions fairly, it doesn’t breach law or regulations and is in keeping with the terms and conditions of the account, then this service won’t usually intervene. They shouldn’t decline to continue to provide banking services without proper reason, and they must treat new and existing customers fairly. Given its regulatory and legal obligations, I’m satisfied Barclays’ decision was made fairly.

-- 2 of 4 --

The terms and conditions of Mr H’s account sets out that the bank can close the accounts by providing the requisite notice. In Mr H’s case Barclays wrote to him and he was given 62 days to make alternative banking arrangements. Mr H has provided details of the impact Barclays’ decision to close the account had on him. A key issue is that he a temporary credit that was given to Mr H whilst Barclays reviewed his chargeback claim was taken from his account. I haven’t assessed the chargeback claims Mr H submitted, but I can assure Mr H that this is the standard process when a chargeback claim is review and deemed unsuccessful. I can see Barclays apologised for any distress this caused and has refunded this amount to Mr H. I consider this to be fair approach to resolving the issue. Mr H has also referenced inconvenience he experienced when trying to access benefits and wages. Mr H says he had to attend branch to do this, which caused him distress given his vulnerabilities. The evidence I’ve reviewed shows Mr H didn’t have a debit card – which he explained to Barclays when he raised his complaint. This meant transacting on the account would’ve had to involve online, telephone or branch banking – and Mr H would’ve had to attend branch to withdraw funds. I can also see that whilst the account was reviewed it was restricted – this meant Mr H needed to attend branch with identification to access wages and benefits. I understand the difficulty this posed to Mr H, but I consider this requirement to be reasonable whilst the account was under review. As part of his submissions to the business to Barclays and our service Mr H says he wasn’t provided with the appropriate support in light of his vulnerabilities and difficult personal circumstances. I am sorry to learn of the challenges Mr H faces, and I would expect Barclays to provide support and signpost Mr H once it became aware of his individual needs. I can see Barclays did this – in its dealings with Mr H both on the phone and in branch. I am also mindful that Mr H had challenging conversations with staff members and these were difficult for all involved. Given the details I’ve seen I consider Barclays’ attempts to assist Mr H to be appropriate, as it has a duty to Mr H, but also to its staff, to ensure they are protected and able to assist customers in a professional manner. Barclays has accepted the handling of some of Mr H’s concerns and aspects of his account could’ve been better and it has offered compensation for this, as detailed above. Mr H doesn’t consider this to be sufficient and has asked for £175 in compensation. I must highlight my review has focused on the closure of Mr H’s account and the service he received. Mr H has various other complaints with Barclays which I have not considered under this review. With this in mind, I have considered the actions Barclays has taken in relation to this complaint and I don’t consider further compensation to be necessary. Reaching an award for distress and inconvenience is seldom straightforward. The issues involved are subjective by their very nature and the impact on the consumer can be difficult to determine. Our awards are not intended to be punitive for businesses, and their fundamental aim is to recognise the impact on a consumer where there have been shortcomings. Having considered the timeline of events and service issues, I think the compensation is reasonable and I don’t find Barclays’ actions warrant further compensation. I’m sorry this isn’t the outcome Mr H hoped for, and I know he will be disappointed with the decision I’ve reached. I can see the Investigator directed Mr H to services which may be able to assist with the personal issues he has outlined. I do hope Mr H is able to utilise these and receive the support he requires. I hope my decision provides some clarity around why I won’t be asking Barclays to take any further action or compensate him, and that his concerns have been fairly looked at.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Chandni Green Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --