Starling Bank Limited · DRN-6037816

The complaint Mr J complains that Starling Bank Limited (‘Starling’) froze his account and withheld his funds. Mr J adds the situation impacted his mental health and left him in financial difficulties. What happened On 1 August 2025, Starling initiated a review of Mr J’s account. The funds in the account, amounting to just over £3,000 was frozen and Mr J couldn’t access the account or funds. Starling contacted Mr J regarding a significant number of payments he’d received from third parties into his account. It asked Mr J for information regarding the payments he’d received and that had been sent from his account, over the previous twelve months. Mr J responded promptly and explained the purpose of the payments he’d made were to pay a friend for work they’d completed on his garden and car detailing services for cars he’d bought and sold. Mr J further explained that he’d received payments for items he’d sold at car boot sales and on a social media platform. Mr J submitted evidence of the items he said he’d sold online and the works that had been completed to his garden. Mr J got in touch with Starling and explained he urgently needed access to his funds to pay his mortgage, buy food and pay household bills, as he had no other funds and required access to them to support his family. Mr J informed Starling that its actions were affecting his mental health, leading to him having thoughts of harming himself. Starling subsequently raised a welfare case with the police, which resulted in officers attending Mr J’s home address. Mr J chased Starling for updates throughout its review and submitted a complaint about the matter. Starling lifted the restrictions on Mr J’s account eight days after it began the review and returned the funds to Mr J. In addition, Starling closed Mr J’s account. Starling issued its final response in August 2025. In summary, it said: • As a regulated bank, Starling is required to monitor accounts and transactions, which was in line with the account terms and conditions • A restriction was placed on Mr J’s account and Starling couldn’t share further details around the security measures it takes • A timescale couldn’t be provided regarding the conclusion of the review because every case is looked at on its own merits and the team conducting the review required sufficient time to conclude their investigation • Whilst a review is underway, Starling can’t grant access to funds until the review is concluded

-- 1 of 3 --

• Mr J had mentioned that he was promised over the phone the review would be concluded by 5:30pm on the day it began. Starling investigated this and couldn’t identify where this was promised to Mr J Mr J referred his complaint to this service. He explained that he wanted Starling to compensate him for the distress caused. Mr J added that his experience with Starling had left him worried and concerned about dealing with banks in the future. One of our Investigators looked into things and didn’t uphold the complaint. In short, they said: • As a regulated financial business, Starling had a wide range of legal and regulatory obligations, when providing accounts to customers and the consequences of not complying with such obligations, can be serious • Starling could conduct account reviews at any time and doesn’t have to give notice or provide a detailed explanation to its customer regarding why it was doing a review • Starling had disclosed information to our service in confidence, which explained its reasons for the review. The evidence showed Starling acted in line with its legal and regulatory obligations • The call where Mr J said he was told the review would be completed by 5:30pm hadn’t been listened to, so what was discussed couldn’t be verified. Whilst the situation was extremely distressing and challenging for Mr J, Starling completed the review within a reasonable timeframe and hadn’t caused any undue delays Mr J disagreed. He reiterated that Starling had informed both him and the police that it would have the matter resolved by 5:30pm, on the day the account review commenced and he considered Starling had made false promises to him. As no agreement could be reached, the matter has been passed 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. Having done so, I’ve decided not to uphold Mr J’s complaint. I appreciate this will come as a disappointment to Mr J. My conclusions are in no way meant to belittle what he went through. I understand it was an extremely difficult time for him and being without access to his money had a serious impact on him financially and emotionally. However, I don’t believe Starling made any errors here, so it follows that, despite the impact on Mr J, I won’t be asking it to compensate him for what happened. I’ll now explain why. Banks in the UK are strictly regulated and must take certain actions in order to meet their legal and regulatory obligations. They are also required to carry out ongoing monitoring of an existing business relationship. That sometimes means banks need to restrict, or in some cases go as far as closing, customers’ accounts. Starling has provided me with information to show why it reviewed Mr J’s account. Having carefully considered this, I’m satisfied that it acted in line with the account terms and obligations it must follow. And I consider Starling’s reasons for carrying out this review were reasonable. I understand Mr J might want to know more about why this review was carried out, but Starling is under no obligation to tell Mr J the reasons behind the account block and review.

-- 2 of 3 --

I would add too 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. Some of the information Starling has provided is information I consider should be kept confidential. Having reviewed the evidence and timeline submitted by Starling in confidence, I find Starling’s actions to be fair and reasonable. The evidence provided by Starling in confidence shows that a detailed review of the account took place, and Starling considered all the relevant evidence it had access to, including the information it gathered from Mr J. I note too from the evidence provided, that Starling made efforts to expedite the review, due to the significant impact it was having on Mr J. I recognise Mr J says he was informed that Starling would complete the review by 5:30pm on the first day of the account restriction. Starling have provided the calls that took place between Mr J and Starling, which I’ve listened to. Mr J asked Starling to resolve the matter as soon as possible and on the same day, due to the impact the situation was having on him. But I don’t find that Starling told Mr J this would be the case, nor do I think that it created an unrealistic expectation regarding when the account block would be lifted – so I don’t find that Starling acted unfairly here. I acknowledge Mr J was put in a difficult position when his account was blocked and I appreciate the abrupt restriction of the account, adversely affected him and his family. But as I find Starling fairly blocked the account and did so for a reasonable amount of time, I don’t agree that Starling should compensate Mr J for any distress and inconvenience he experienced. Having considered everything, I think Starling acted reasonably in the circumstances of the complaint - so I won’t be directing Starling to do anything to put things right. My final decision For the reasons above, I have decided not to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Khadijah Nakhuda Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --