The bank made sure Evan could withdraw cash and pay bills but was concerned large sums may be leaving his account due to coercion or fraud.
What happened
Evan’s bank blocked his current account because it was concerned about some of the payments he was making. The block meant Evan could only use his account for direct debits and standing orders. The bank allowed Evan to keep his card so he could withdraw cash. But it said it wanted to discuss any larger payments with him.
One of the bank’s employees spoke to Evan and explained the restrictions were in place because the bank was worried he was being taken advantage of.
Evan told the bank he’d been sending money to help someone that he knew and wanted to support financially. He said the friend in question didn’t have a bank account, so he’d paid other friends money that they could pass on. In the conversation, however, he also talked about trying to avoid this particular friend.
From what Evan said, the bank’s employee was concerned that the friend was trying to manipulate Evan into sending money, which – over the years – added up to a large sum. She suggested that he ask for support from the police or social services.
Evan responded that he should be able to do what he wants with his own money. He complained to the bank and – disappointed with their response – brought his complaint to us.
What we said
Evan’s bank had a right to block his account so it could carry out checks. But freezing the account indefinitely had made Evan’s day-to-day banking very difficult and hadn’t stopped him passing on cash that he’d withdrawn using the card.
We agreed that Evan was responsible for his own decisions. But, if a bank suspects their customer is being coerced or defrauded, it has a duty to assess whether it should allow the consumer to proceed. Evan’s bank was concerned he’d experience financial harm if the blocks were removed and was taking action to ensure he had control of his money.
Evan still had access to a card so he could withdraw cash, and his bills were being paid by direct debit and standing order. He was also able to phone the bank to discuss matters if he wanted to make larger transfers.
While we understood that Evan was unhappy with the situation, we believed the bank was blocking the payments to protect his interests. So, we didn’t uphold the complaint. But we did tell the bank to keep the arrangement under regular review.