DRN-6313091

The complaint Mr G is unhappy Barclays Bank UK PLC closed his account and delayed returning his funds. 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 G held a Barclays account. Barclays reviewed its accounts following the UK’s departure from the European Economic Area (EEA) and made the decision to apply some limitations on who it would provide accounts to. This meant it would not provide accounts to those with an address outside the UK. Barclays wrote to Mr G on 10 March 2024 to explain its decision and the steps he would need to take. This involved him checking his address was correct, and if he resided outside the UK the account would need to be brought down to a zero balance as it would close. Mr G was given until 24 September 2024 to carry out these actions. The letter made it clear that the account would close on or shortly after 2 October 2024. If the account closed with a balance the funds would be moved to a central account and Mr G would need to complete a reclaim process. Barclays issued reminder letters to Mr G, but the account closed on 8 October 2024. Mr G contacted Barclays in March 2025 about his account and raised a complaint. Mr G also completed a reclaim form and this was received in early April 2025. In his complaint Mr G says he experienced poor service and delays. In particular he says his vulnerabilities weren’t taken into account and it took too long to release the funds. Mr G also referenced trying to access funds in his account in previous years to pay for his son’s college fees. Mr G received his funds on 16 April 2025. In its final response letter Barclays said it acted fairly in closing the account, but accepted there were some delays. It paid Mr G £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience this caused Mr G. Mr G remained unhappy and referred his complaint to our service. Mr G reiterated his concerns about the closure and the service he received. An Investigator reviewed the complaint and in summary, made the following recommendations: • Barclays acted fairly in closing the account – it is able to decide who it offers accounts to and what the criteria should be. • There were service failings – but the £50 compensation offered by Barclays is fair. Mr G remained unhappy and reiterated his concerns. Mr G explained being deprived of access to his funds and the service was poor, which was a particular issue given his vulnerabilities. Mr G requested further compensation to put things right.

-- 1 of 3 --

As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has been passed to me – 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. I appreciate Mr G disappointed by the Investigator’s opinion. I’d like to reassure Mr G that I’ve considered the whole file and what he has provided. 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. Our rules allow me to take this approach. It simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. I must also highlight this complaint only deals with Barclays’ decision to close Mr G’s account and the handling of the reclaim process. I have issued a separate decision on Mr G’s complaint in relation to a historical issue with his account. Barclays has explained that following the UK leaving the EU it reviewed the services it offered to customers. A policy decision was made Barclays to limit certain services provided to customers living outside the UK. I understand Mr G is a long-standing Barclays customer. However, this is a commercial decision that Barclays is entitled to make. So, I cannot say Barclays did anything wrong by making this decision, and it provided Mr G the opportunity to transfer funds out before the account closed. I must also highlight that Barclays can close an account at any time as long as it gives the appropriate notice as laid out in its terms. Barclays’ terms and conditions say it will give 60 days’ notice, and it first wrote to Mr G in March 2024. Barclays told Mr G it would be closing the account in October 2024. So, I’m satisfied Barclays gave the right amount of notice and provided a longer timeframe so Mr G could transfer his funds out. Mr G didn’t take action with his account balance. I’ve reviewed Barclays’ notes and I am satisfied the relevant notices about the changes were correctly sent to Mr G. I realise the closure of the account was inconvenient for Mr G, especially as he isn’t permanently in the UK. The timeline of events shows he was provided with the information and time he needed to manage the account and make arrangements. So I don’t consider there to be failings here on Barclays’ part. However, this doesn’t detract from the fact this process wasn’t smooth and it’s not in dispute the service from Barclays could’ve been better. Mr G says he contacted Barclays via letter on 4 September 2024 and late February 2025 which he didn’t receive a response to. Barclays doesn’t have a record of these letters but accepts Mr G sent them. I can also see that once Mr G sent in his reclaim form, he was told it would take seven to eight days to process. Mr G confirmed receipt of his funds on 16 April 2025. I can see there was a slight delay here, but I don’t find it to be deliberate as Barclays was processing the forms and carrying out the necessary checks. Mr G says the lack of access to his funds was unfair. I understand this would’ve been a source of worry for Mr G, but he didn’t appear to use the account regularly. In addition, Barclays had assured him that it was processing his request during phone calls. The £50 offer from Barclays is to reflect the impact the delay and service issues had on Mr G. Mr G says this amount ought to be increased.

-- 2 of 3 --

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 the details provided I think the compensation of £50 is reasonable and in keeping with our service’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. As part of his submissions to the business to Barclays and our service Mr G says he wasn’t provided with the appropriate support in light of his vulnerabilities. I would expect Barclays to provide support to Mr G once it became aware of his individual needs. I can see that Barclays added the relevant notes to Mr G’s profile and was aware of his need to access funds. It also acknowledged these issues during Mr G’s calls with staff members. In light of the circumstances here I am satisfied Barclays took appropriate steps to assist Mr G. I’m sorry this isn’t the outcome Mr G hoped for, and I know he will be disappointed with the decision I’ve reached. But I hope my decision provides some clarity around why I won’t be awarding further compensation. 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 G to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Chandni Green Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --