DRN-6262460

The complaint The complaint is brought on behalf of business “Y” by the business owner Mr R. For ease I will refer to Mr R throughout this decision. Mr R is unhappy with Tide Platform Ltd. Mr R is unhappy about losses he said the business faced after someone working for him (Mr H) was able to see how much money was in the business account. Mr R said he had set the account up so an expense card holder (Mr H) would be unable to see the business account balance. But when using an ATM Mr H viewed the amount. Mr R was also unhappy that when the card holder engaged with Tide support he was helped with details and instructions that should only be discussed with the account owner. What happened Mr R said when he had arranged for the expense card to be given to Mr H he had set up arrangements through his banking app to switch off “balance-visibility permissions.” So, Mr R was upset when Mr H sent him a screenshot from his phone of the ATM screen confirming the business account balance. Mr R said this led to “massive operational complications” from that moment on for him and his business. Mr R contacted Tide and it confirmed that it couldn’t prevent balance disclosures at ATM’s as it didn’t control the ATM network. Mr R made a complaint. Mr R then said following this Mr H was able to chat to Tide support functions, was told the account was active, given instructions on how to unfreeze the account, and given the impression the account was his. Mr R put it that Mr H “was treated as if he owned or controlled the account.” Tide accepted errors had been made. But said Mr H wouldn’t have been able to see the account balance on the Tide app. It said he could do so via a third party ATM as Tide wasn’t able to restrict these. It noted Mr R asked for written confirmation of this and Tide accepted this wasn’t done. Instead, it informed Mr R he could submit feedback and provided a link to do so. After this Mr R made further contact with Tide after Mr H had been in contact with its support function. Tide said expense cardholders like Mr H have limited access to a Tide account. It said Mr R could limit spending and access to the account information but only in relation to the Tide app. It confirmed it couldn’t stop ATM providers from showing the account balance. But it did accept, “on a single instance, your team member was advised that the account was his and was active in an error.” It said this mistake was reported and feedback was provided. But it continued no active account data was shared with Mr H. It apologised for the mistake. Tide said in relation to all of Mr H’s other requests it insisted he would need to inform Mr R to contact Tide.

-- 1 of 4 --

Turning to the service it had provided Tide said it was extremely disappointed with its handling and the lapses in communication. In view of this it offered £150 compensation as an apology. Mr R didn’t accept this and brought his complaint to this service. He wants a fair proportion of the £60,464.40 he said his business had suffered in revenue shortfall as a consequential loss and a separate award for distress and inconvenience, plus reimbursement for any filing costs. He asked that the prior Tide offer of £150 be disregarded. Mr R also wants a full written apology, in app warnings, and tighter support warnings. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. He said Tide’s offer of £150 compensation was fair. Our investigator referred to Tide’s terms and conditions, but he felt Tide should have made Mr R aware card holders could see the account balance at ATM’s. He noted Mr R had to make further contact about Mr H being given account information by Tide support. He accepted Mr R had suffered inconvenience through the service provided and the data breach. He didn’t think Tide was responsible for any “operational fallout” as he called it, regarding Mr H seeing the account balance. Mr R didn’t accept this and asked for his complaint to be passed to an ombudsman for a final decision. 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. There’s been a lot of detailed correspondence around the evidence from Mr R for which I’m grateful. But this is an informal service so I’m not going to comment on everything included within this complaint. Instead, I’m going to stick to what I think are the central points that apply here. I can confirm all of the evidence provided by both sides has been considered. Mr R didn’t feel Tide had addressed the issue of expense card holders being able to see account balances at ATM’s, or the impact on his business. Mr R said there was no clear warning at the point of getting an expense card that the holder would be able to see ATM account balances. Mr R claimed this was material to his decision to issue the card. He said Mr H had no managerial authority over the account. He said Mr H behaved differently around money and he couldn’t keep him focussed on completing work and jobs once he had seen the account balance. Mr R said the bank statements he has provided as evidence show this. Mr R laid out very detailed documentation he said showing the average business income and its fall with the loss of Mr H, cancellations, and the businesses inability to service new work it was being offered. Mr R said there was a breakdown of trust with Mr H from the point he had viewed the balance and contacted Tide support. Mr R said Tide engaged with the expense card holder repeatedly. Mr R chose to freeze Mr H’s expense card. He said this was a defensive step “to slow the situation down.” And he said this was to protect the business account. Mr R said this was a direct reaction to Tide’s controls not functioning. But he also went on to say freezing the card had unavoidable operational consequences. He said this made fuel and material purchases harder and slower. And work and surveys slipped as teams can’t “move as efficiently.” Mr R raised several other points about the knock on impact of the card freeze to the business.

-- 2 of 4 --

Mr R said the figure of £60,464.40 didn’t capture the full scale of the impact. He said he reserved the right to recalculate it. Mr R said the compensation figure didn’t reflect the seriousness of the failings. Mr R also raised complaint handling delays once he complained about the issues. But complaint handling isn’t a regulated activity so I can’t make any finding on that. Tide in its final response did explain it couldn’t block access to account details from other ATM providers. It accepted the single error was made with information incorrectly discussed with Mr H. It confirmed on a few occasions to Mr R that no actual account data was shared with Mr H and all Tide support staff informed him to get Mr R to get in touch with Tide if needs be. It concluded once Mr R had frozen the card Mr H couldn’t log into the Tide app or use the card any further. And in view of this it apologised for the poor service and offered the £150 as compensation. Tide did in other correspondence to Mr R confirm the situation regarding ATM’s showing account balances. It also confirmed card holders are able to contact it via the Tide app, but the support offered is limited to the Tide expense card. Tide maintained it had, as far as the Tide app is concerned, kept to its terms and conditions. It said the expense card holder had circumvented the restriction by using the “Check balance” option at a third party ATM which it is unable to prevent. The Tide terms and conditions state: “7. Using a Tide Card to add funds to your Tide Business Account 7.1 A Tide Cardholder who has the required access rights enabled within the Tide Platform can check the balance of their Tide Business Account at an ATM or on the Tide Platform.” Tide said in evidence it didn’t have the ability to restrict ATM access. It continued, “So, in brief, it is not expressly stated to my knowledge that checking balances through ATMs is something that expense cardholders can do, though to some extent that is to be expected given the nature of cards in general.” I can understand Mr R’s concern. Although I think Tide’s explanation of what has happened here is acceptable, I think Mr R’s point about Tide making this point expressly clear to its customers is valid. He said it was something he considered when he decided to take out the expense card – Mr R thinks there should be a clear warning at that point – and I think he makes a fair point. Tide can say it tells customers this in the terms and conditions but this section Tide has pointed us to doesn’t say it. I think it could be clearer at the point when a card is being taken out about what access an expense card holder will have if they use an ATM. But Tide accepted where it has made mistakes, it has apologised, it has explained what happened, and it has offered compensation for the mistakes made. And in response to the issues, I think it has acted fairly and reasonably. I do understand how upset Mr R is about the situation but I can’t hold Tide accountable for the actions of Mr H. Mr R sent in evidence of the screenshot Mr H took of the ATM screen showing the business account balance. Mr R chose to freeze Mr H’s access to the expense card and has explained the knock on implications that caused his business. I don’t accept that Mr H being able to see the account balance would lead to the situation Mr R refers to

-- 3 of 4 --

and a loss of business. If there was an issue after that I think it’s between Mr R and Mr H. I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable to make a link between an expense card holder entering a part of the ATM system and looking at the business account balance and Tide costing Mr R’s business more than £60,000. In terms of the incorrect information being given to Mr H by Tide support it accepted this and made it clear that no actual account information was given out. So, I accept Mr R was unhappy about these discussions and an error was made but I think Tide has dealt with this fairly and reasonably. At certain points and based on some of his submissions there’s an impression Mr R is considering legal action against Tide. Mr R is perfectly entitled to do so and would need to confirm that he doesn’t accept this decision if he does wish to continue with that option. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. I make no further award against Tide Platform Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Y to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. John Quinlan Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --