HSBC UK Bank Plc · DRN-5973105

The complaint Mr S complains that HSBC UK Bank Plc (HSBC UK) closed his accounts. What happened The details of this complaint are well known by both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here in detail. Instead, I’ll focus on setting out some of the key facts and on giving my reasons for my decision. HSBC UK wrote to the postal address linked to Mr S’ account on 3 October 2024 explaining that it had identified transactions on his personal current account which indicated Mr S may be using it for business purposes. The letter went on to explain that this was against the terms and conditions of his account and HSBC UK may close the account if the activity continued. No response was received to this, nor did the account activity noticeably change, and so HSBC UK provided Mr S with two months' notice of closure on 18 January 2025. Mr S has told this service that he was residing in the UAE at the time of these events and so did not receive HSBC UK’s letter. Mr S has also said he believes there was no business- related activity on his personal account. An investigator at this service reviewed this complaint and explained that they felt HSBC UK should have sent Mr S an email rather than a letter in October 2024. This is because HSBC UK had Mr S’ correspondence preference noted as email. The investigator also explained that later, when Mr S had been in touch with HSBC UK regarding his complaint, he was never given an explanation despite asking why his accounts were shut. As HSBC UK’s concerns regarding business activity on his personal account had already been relayed to Mr S previously, when it wrote to him in October 2024, the investigator felt HSBC UK’s communication and service to Mr S had fallen short. For these reasons the investigator recommended HSBC UK pay Mr S compensation of £100 to resolve the complaint – which HSBC UK accepted. Mr S disagreed and so his complaint has been passed to me 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. Mr S has explained that he feels there was no business activity on the account. But having reviewed Mr S’ account statements in the months leading up to, and following, October 2024 including the movement of funds into and out of the account, I can understand why HSBC UK found there may have been. I appreciate Mr S may well have an explanation for the activity which he can now provide, but I must consider what HSBC UK had available to it at the time. And when considering HSBC UK did not receive a response to its letter of 3 October 2024, nor did a noticeable change in account activity occur, I find that HSBC’s decision to close Mr S’s accounts in the way it did was fair and in line with its terms and conditions.

-- 1 of 2 --

Having considered the service provided by HSBC UK, I agree that it could have been more open with Mr S regarding the closure reason, considering it had already told him about its concerns over potential business-related account activity previously. And I also agree that HSBC UK would have been providing better customer service to Mr S by sending an email rather than a letter when it wrote to him in October 2024 - considering his correspondence preference was noted as email. However, to be clear, I don’t find that HSBC UK was in principle acting unfairly by sending Mr S a letter to the address it held for him – indeed its terms and conditions explain it may write to his postal address. I can’t see that Mr S ever told HSBC UK directly that he was residing in the UAE and needed to update his postal address. I understand Mr S may have had a conversation with a separate legal entity of HSBC within the UAE, but I can’t hold HSBC UK responsible for any actions that entity may or may not have taken. Mr S’ accounts were based within the UK and so I think it’s reasonable that Mr S needed to make HSBC UK aware of any changes to his place of residence and/or postal address. To conclude, I find that HSBC UK’s decision to close Mr S’ accounts in the way it did was both fair and in line with the applicable terms and conditions. However, I find that the way it corresponded with Mr S could have been handled better and so I agree with the investigators recommendation that HSBC UK should award Mr S £100 compensation to resolve this complaint for the distress and inconvenience he suffered. My final decision For the reasons above, I have decided to uphold this complaint. I now direct HSBC UK Bank Plc to pay Mr S £100 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Mark Louth Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --