Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6025188

The complaint Mr B complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC froze then closed his accounts without providing any notice or explanation. This had a significant impact on Mr B. What happened Mr B had current and savings accounts with Barclays. Mr B’s accounts were frozen without him being given any notice or reason. At the time Mr B has said he was in Romania on holiday and he wasn’t able to access any of his funds needed for food, transport, and other expenses. He contacted Barclays but says they were not helpful and he ended up having to borrow money and cancel plans as he had no access to the funds in his Barclays accounts. Mr B made a complaint to Barclays who provided its response. In this it explained it would not be upholding the complaint as the activity on the account prompted a review, and the nature of the review meant safeguards were placed on the account and it couldn’t provide any further information. It acknowledged the situation that the review left Mr B in, but explained the review was conducted in line with legal obligations. It directed Mr B to where he could find support on his mobile banking. Following the complaint, Mr B’s account was closed and he was sent a letter informing him of this. This letter explained the closure was done in line with the terms and conditions of the account and what Mr B needed to do to retrieve funds in the account. Unhappy with this Mr B brought a complaint to our service. One of our investigators looked into the complaint and issued their outcome. In this they considered Barclays reasons for blocking and subsequently closing the account were fair, and it took reasonable actions to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations. Mr B disagreed, he sent in two responses in which he explained that there was a lack of transparency, in that the information relied upon hasn’t been shared with him. The impact of the closure hadn’t been addressed. No prior communication had been provided, and funds were removed without explanation. Mr B felt the reasoning was insufficient to conclude that Barclays had acted fairly. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has come to me to decide. 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’m aware I’ve summarised events of the complaint and in less detail than the parties and I’ve done so using my own words. No discourtesy is intended by me in taking this approach. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I’m satisfied I don’t

-- 1 of 3 --

need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. I do stress however that I’ve considered everything that Mr B and Barclays have said before reaching my decision. I’ve considered Mr B’s comments regarding the confidential information; I would add that our rules allow us to receive evidence in confidence. We may treat evidence from banks as confidential for a number of reasons – for example, if it contains security information, or commercially sensitive information. Here, some information is sensitive and on balance I don’t believe it should be disclosed. But it’s also material to the issue of whether Barclays treated Mr B fairly. So, I’m persuaded I should take it into account when deciding the outcome of the complaint. Barclays are strictly regulated and must take certain actions in order to meet legal and regulatory obligations when providing account services to customers. They can broadly be summarised as a responsibility to know its customer, monitor accounts, verify the source and purpose of funds, as well as detect and prevent other financial harm. Barclays will review accounts to comply with these responsibilities. Sometimes following a review, a bank will decide to block or go as far as close an account. The terms and conditions of the account set out that Barclays could close the account by giving Mr B at least two months’ notice. Or in certain circumstances it can close the account immediately. This is what happened here, Barclays wrote to Mr B to explain it had closed his accounts. Barclays hasn’t provided Mr B with a reason for closing his accounts, and it’s not obliged to. I don’t think it’s done anything wrong for not providing Mr B with a reason. But it has provided us with the reason and supporting evidence. This includes evidence and information that we’ve decided should be kept confidential. I’ve also considered what Mr B has said in relation to the relevant legal duties and regulations he believes hasn’t been considered. Having looked at all the information Barclays considered as part of its investigation, I’m satisfied it was entitled to block and close the account in the manner in which it has, without providing Mr B with any prior notice or warning, and it’s done so in line with the terms and conditions of the account, and the relevant legal and regulatory obligations. Mr B has referred to the unexplained removal and blocking of his funds. In certain circumstances it is not appropriate to provide prior notice before blocking funds or the account. Having considered all the evidence and information, I’m satisfied Barclays management of the account has been fair and proportionate and completed in order to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations. I appreciate the blocks and closure of the account would have caused significant impact on Mr B. For me to consider any compensation for the impact Mr B has been caused by the account closure, I would first have to have considered Barclays to have made a mistake in the manner in which it closed the account. Because I haven’t found Barclays to have made a mistake, and I’m satisfied the blocks and closure were fair and proportionate in the circumstances, I won’t be asking it to pay compensation for the impact that it had on Mr B. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026.

-- 2 of 3 --

Simon Yates Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --