Lloyds Bank PLC · DRN-6214129

The complaint Mrs G complains Lloyds Bank PLC (“Lloyds”): • Restricted her accounts for around two and a half years and failed to take reasonable steps to restore her access given it knew she was living abroad with her young family • Continued charging fees and charges on her credit card • Allowed fraudulent transactions to be processed • Provided severely poor customer service and communication • Forced her to travel to the UK and attend a branch to be identified by Lloyds’ staff To put things right, Mrs G wants compensation for her financial losses – which include international phone calls amounting to around £420, travels costs for her family, and more than £25,000 for loss of income. Mrs G also wants compensation for the distress and inconvenience she has suffered. She also wants any fees and charges that have been applied to her accounts refunded along with charges for her credit card reward points refunded. Mrs G also wants her husband to be compensated for loss of income as he took unpaid leave to join her in the UK. 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. Mrs G previously lived and studied in the UK. In 2017 she moved abroad with her husband. Mrs G says she was reassured by Lloyds’ staff that she could keep her UK accounts without issue despite residing abroad. In July 2021, Lloyds blocked Mrs G’s accounts. Lloyds had done this as fraudsters had attempted, and in limited circumstances, had been successful in gaining access to Mrs G’s accounts. As there had been a failure of the telephone security verification process, Lloyds told Mrs G she would have to come to a UK Lloyds branch to be identified before access to her accounts was reinstated. Mrs G says she called Lloyds many times, for around two years, to get access to her accounts but was told she was unable to do so without attending a UK branch. Mrs G had a current account and credit card with Lloyds. Mrs G says that she was on a ‘spouse’ visa in her new country of residence which meant she could not open a bank account there. Mrs G adds that as she had no statements or access to them, she couldn’t show the embassy for visa purposes that she had her own funds. That meant Mrs G could not get a work permit in line with that nations’ regulations.

-- 1 of 13 --

Mrs G says she was prevented from flying to the UK until July 2023 due to COVID, her family circumstances, and being pregnant. Mrs G says the Lloyds account was her only account, and the funds in it of around £20,000, was all the money she had. Mrs G says that without access to these funds she struggled to cover essential expenses for, including and not limited to, groceries, rent and bills. So, the responsibility to provide for their family was solely borne by her husband. Mrs G says she appointed a close friend as her power of attorney in the UK, and the paperwork cost her around £300 – but this still didn’t work in terms of getting access to her accounts. Mrs G says she ‘pleaded’ with Lloyds’ staff to speak to a manager to find a solution, but this didn’t happen nor did she receive any promised call backs. Mrs G says her only family lived in a European country – not the UK. So she flew out with her husband and her two children aged four and one in 2023. She then settled her kids with their grandparents – Mrs G’s parents - and flew to the UK with her husband. Mrs G says she then encountered severe delays and poor customer service in Lloyds’ branch as she tried to resolve the matter. Mrs G says she spent over five hours in the branch and was treated poorly. Mrs G gained access to her current account and online banking. Mrs G says that in July 2023, when gaining access to ger online banking again, she could only see six months of her credit card statements. This didn’t help as she needed to go back to 2021 to see what fraudulent transactions had taken place. Mrs G was also alarmed to see she was being charged interest and charges against her credit card balance. Mrs G was able to identify six fraud payments over the phone with Lloyds’ agent. Which amounted to around £19 and which took place between July and September 2021. Despite being given access to her account, Mrs G says Lloyds could only give her £500 cash – which didn’t cover her costs whilst in the UK. Mrs G and her husband attended another branch the following day to order credit card statements and change her registered address. Mrs G says Lloyds failed to change her address, but she was able to online. She also points to her complaint being poorly handled. Mrs G’s accounts were further blocked in October 2023 due to fraud concerns, but Mrs G was able to successfully verify herself and they were unrestricted. Mrs G is unhappy that despite many promises, the credit card statements were never posted to her parents address as she had specified. But it was only in February 2024 that she got access to her statements as the banking app now provided them for a wider range of retrospective dates. Unhappy, Mrs G complained. Lloyds didn’t uphold Mrs G’s complaint saying that a standard fraud block was applied so that it could verify recent activity on her account. And, as Mrs G was unable to answer the security questions correctly on the phone, Mrs G could not also update Lloyds with her new mobile number. Lloyds added that as it was concerned the caller may have been a fraudster, it applied the blocks. As Lloyds had no other way of identifying Mrs G, it requested she visit one of its branches with photographic ID. Lloyds apologised for the distress and inconvenience Mrs G suffered but said it had done nothing wrong. Mrs G referred her complaint to this service. Our Investigator’s looked into Mrs G’s complaint. One of our Investigator’s recommended Mrs G’s complaint was upheld in part. In summary, the key findings they made were: • Lloyds acted fairly in blocking Mrs G’s accounts given it had received calls from

-- 2 of 13 --

fraudsters pretending to be her • Lloyds say that it could have escalated Mrs G’s verification to a manager who would have conducted a manager’s check. But Mrs G was not offered this. Had Mrs G correctly been offered this, it’s likely she would have passed the security checks – and the subsequent issues she encountered, including travelling to the UK, would have been avoided • When attending Lloyds’ branch in 2023, Mrs G couldn’t obtain statements dating back to July 2021, and she wasn’t given access to all her funds, only £500. So Mrs G incurred unnecessary travel and accommodations costs. Because of what Lloyds did wrong, Mrs G suffered significant distress and inconvenience • To put things right, Lloyds should: o Restructure the credit card account as if no interest or charges had accrued up to 1 February 2024 when Mrs G stated she finally received the account statements. Mrs G subsequently cleared the outstanding balance on 2 April 2025. However, it’s unclear why Mrs G took over a year to pay the balance after receiving the statements. So, it’s not reasonable to require Lloyds to refund or waive the interest and charges that accrued between 1 February 2024 to 2 April 2025 o Compensate Mrs G for the flights to the UK. From the information available, Mrs G and her family travelled from South Africa to Lithuania to leave their children with her parents before continuing to the UK to resolve the issues with Lloyds. As Mrs G remained in Lithuania for over a month, I do not consider it reasonable to require Lloyds to cover the cost of travel between South Africa and Lithuania or the return journey to South Africa o Pay the UK hotel costs Mrs G incurred o Pay 8% simple interest on the current account from 20 July 2021 to when access was granted on the current account balance for the loss of use of funds o Pay £750 compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience Lloyds agreed with what our Investigator said, Mrs G did not. I’d like to assure Mrs G that I have reviewed her comments very carefully, even if I don’t set them out in express detail here. In summary, the key points Mrs G made were: • Mrs G had to fly to her parents’ home in another part of Europe to settle the children and then take budget flights to the UK. And had she flown directly to the UK the Visa costs and flight costs would have been double. The trip was not a voluntary stay but a direct consequence of the account blocks and absence of an alternative resolution. So, all costs associated with travel should be paid to Mrs G. Had Mrs G travelled with her kids the extra visa costs would have been around £450 • Mrs G and her husband had to raise money for the travel against their home mortgage. This would not have been the case had Mrs G had access to her funds with Lloyds • Interest and charges should be refunded on the credit card until Mrs G was able to

-- 3 of 13 --

make a payment to clear the balance in April 2025. The delay in clearing the balance until 2 April 2025 was not due to negligence on Mrs G’s part but stemmed from persistent service issues, including challenges in verifying and processing payments amid the unresolved account restrictions and Mrs G’s international location. Waiving the interest and charges only partially fails to recognise how Lloyds’ initial errors compounded over time, lead to unnecessary accruals that Mrs G should not be held responsible for • The 8% interest award on the current account does not adequately compensate Mrs G for the funds she was deprived of. The prevailing rate of interest in the country she now lives in is 12.5% and Mrs G was prevented from working as she could not get a working visa • Mrs G incurred substantial international costs over multiple years in attempting to resolve the issues she had with Lloyds. Mrs G’s husband can provide evidence of this as her husband’s wage slips show the cost of the calls being deducted. Mrs G estimates this cost to be between £350 and £400 • £750 does not adequately compensate Mrs G for the severe and sustained distress she suffered over nearly four years. An award of around £20,000 or more would be more appropriate given the impact to Mrs G mental health, family life and ability to manage her financial obligations. Also, because of what Lloyds did wrong, Mrs G was unable to get a work permit • Any impact to Mrs G’s credit file, and the lack of proactive support from Lloyds during the global travel restrictions have been overlooked In response, and in short, our Investigator explained: • This service can only consider losses to Mrs G, as she is the eligible complaint • Mrs G hasn’t shown she had issues paying off her credit card balance between February 2024, when she received statements until she did in 2025 • 8% simple interest is the approach this service takes when a business has unfairly caused a consumer to be deprived of funds they otherwise should have had access to • Mrs G should provide evidence of the international call costs she has incurred and said she can provide. And of the evidence she would have got a work permit Mrs G provided further information: - Evidence from the country’s embassy that proof of financial means in the form of three months’ banks statements or some form of written confirmation is required to obtain permanent residence in that country - Documents showing she applied for visas and paid for them once in May 2019, and then in January 2022 - An internet search answer that shows €0.23 per minute are charged for calls from the European country Mrs G’s parents live in. Mrs G estimates she called Lloyds for about four hours in total at the rate of €0.23 per minute

-- 4 of 13 --

- A technology company’s letter dated January 2026 in relation to itemised billing report for calls to Lloyds from the country Mrs G and her husband reside in for a total cost (converted to sterling) of £250 and further £23 to prepare this report. This report is not addressed to Mrs G Mrs G reiterated that she could not make a payment to clear her credit card balance as the Lloyds banking app did not allow her to do this despite reacquiring access online in July 2023. Mrs G added she had lost five of her most productive years, as she was unable to work to support her family, or advance her career. And this has left a significant gap in her work record. Our Investigator looked into Mrs G’s complaint again in light of the new evidence and arguments she presented. But they didn’t think this changed the outcome they had previously reached including what Lloyds needed to do to put things right. Our Investigator made the following novel points: • The call recording of April 2025 shows Mrs G was able to remedy the issue of her ability to make a payment to clear her credit card balance. This indicates that had contact been made sooner by Mrs G with Lloyds, the access issue may have been resolved sooner and so the outstanding balance could have been paid sooner • Lloyds cannot be held responsible for international phone call costs as Mrs G’s mobile phone didn’t work from her overseas destination • They cannot conclude that Mrs G wasn’t able to get a working visa based on access to her Lloyds bank statements as there may several external factors here that would have influenced her decision to work in that country • The bill Mrs G has provided for international call costs should be paid by Lloyds • Lloyds cannot pay for the calls Mrs G made from her parents’ house as she has no evidence of this. It’s unfortunate that landline has been cancelled Mrs G did not agree. In addition to previously articulated points, Mrs G, in summary, said: • Not being able to get bank statements stopped Mrs G from getting a work permit. She was in the prime of her career following obtaining a degree in the UK, and there was a major skills shortage in her new country of residence for what she did. She had been offered two jobs but couldn’t take them due to the visa issue. So, Mrs G lost out on two years’ worth of income • There was no reason for Mrs G not to pay off her credit card balance given she had sufficient funds to do so. Previously, Mrs G had always paid off her full balance on a monthly basis • The least Lloyds can do is pay for her portion of the travel costs she incurred As there was no agreement, this complaint was passed to me to decide. I then sent both parties my provisional decision in which I said I was planning on upholding this complaint. For ease of reference, here is what I said: Provisional decision “I’m very aware that I’ve summarised the events in this complaint in far less detail than the

-- 5 of 13 --

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 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 Mrs G and Lloyds have said before reaching my decision. 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 am planning on upholding this complaint. Lloyds has a duty to protect its customer from financial harm - particularly fraud. It also has legal and regulatory obligations to adhere to. I’ve seen and listened to compelling evidence that shows Mrs G’s accounts were targeted by fraudsters – and that they were able to orchestrate payments from Mrs G’s account. Because of this, I’m satisfied Lloyds did nothing wrong in blocking Mrs G’s accounts when it did so in 2021. I note Mrs G is unhappy about further blocks, but I note these were based on large payments she was making from her account. And given the background of fraudulent payments being made, I don’t think Lloyds did anything wrong in wanting to verify the payments before unblocking the accounts. That brings me to the crux of this complaint. That is, Lloyds failed to take act fairly and reasonably in providing an appropriate means for Mrs G to verify her identity. That’s because she was living overseas; had a very young family and was later pregnant with another child; there were extensive travel and lockdown measures in place due to COVID; and the cost and other impracticalities of travelling to the UK. Lloyds accept that it failed to follow it own process by not offering Mrs G the opportunity to speak to a manager who could have carried out a ‘managers’ verification check. Thers is no guarantee Mrs G would have passed this had it have happened. But from the evidence I’ve seen, I’m satisfied Mrs G would have been able to give detailed answers of her circumstances and an extensive breakdown of details of her relationship with Lloyds before the accounts were restricted. Because of this I’m persuaded that it’s most likely that had Lloyds initiated this manager callback and verification process, Mrs G would have had access reinstated to her accounts from when she was attempting to do so in July 2021. Putting things right The question for me now to consider is what Lloyds needs to do to put things right. This is a complex and entrenched issue. This is understandable given the impact Mrs G has carefully and extensively described. I’d like to assure both parties that I have very carefully examined all the evidence and arguments in relation to fair remediation. I’m satisfied that Mrs G has had sufficient opportunity to raise any disputed fraud payments, and that Lloyds have refunded these. For pragmatism, I have broken down the key individual areas related to redressing what’s gone wrong. Cost of travel and accommodation

-- 6 of 13 --

Mrs G’s husband was not required for Mrs G to be identified in a UK branch of Lloyds. I appreciate she felt his support was needed given the distress she was enduring, but I have to be mindful here of what costs its fair for Lloyds to pay. From the evidence I’ve seen, which includes Mrs G’s written submission and call recordings, I’m satisfied she could communicate and handle the issues on her own. So, I don’t think Lloyds should pay for any travel costs relating to the husband. The next issue here is whether its fair for Lloyds to pay the cost of Mrs G’s travel from her country of residence in Africa to her parents’ home in Europe. This is a finely balanced point given Mrs G left her residential country on 12 July 2023, spent three days in transit in Turkey, and then reached her parents destination on 16 July 2023. They then settled the children in her parents’ country and travelled to the UK on 25 July 2023. Mrs G spent two nights in London to attend Lloyds’ branches. Mrs G’s evidence show she travelled back to her parents on 27 July 2023. The evidence Mrs G has sent also shows the family returned home, in Africa, on 17 August 2023. They had left the parents’ home country a day earlier. That means Mrs G and her family left their home on 12 July 2023 and returned over a month later on 17 August 2023 – with two days spent in the UK by Mrs G and her husband. Mrs G feels strongly that the entire trip was only taken to resolve her banking issue with Lloyds. I do agree that this was a major factor for them to travel but equally given the length of the stay which included around three weeks after the UK trip spent with her parents’, I’m persuaded that the trip presented a dual purpose here, or at the very least, a dual benefit. That is, Mrs G and her young family got to spend familial time with her parents following a period of being abroad during COVID. If Mrs G’s goal was solely to resolve the issue of access to her accounts, I would expect her to have returned to her country of residence with little time spent with her parents when returning from the UK. I do however agree, as I have alluded to, that a key reason for the trip was to get her account unrestricted given they contained substantive funds Mrs G says she relied on. Having carefully considered this and given Mrs G would have derived familial benefit from the trip, I think its fair Lloyds reimburse Mrs G’s and her children’s airfare – but not for the husband. But given the dual benefit, and roughly half of the time spent with her parents after returning from the UK, I don’t think Lloyds need to reimburse the full cost. Lloyds should also reimburse Mrs G the cost of her travel to and back from the UK. Given Mrs G would have shared a room with her husband, I think its fair Lloyds reimburse her the two nights she paid for hotel accommodation. I do note however the first night was at higher standard of hotel, but there could be practical reasons for this, which could include hotel availability. That means Lloyds need to reimburse Mrs G: • The long-haul flights for three people. Please note for pragmatism I have divided the fare into four and multiplied by three to exclude the husband given the cost I have only shows a total cost and not itemised for each passenger. I think this is a reasonable measure given the evidence available. In sterling the conversion comes to a total of £3,372.12. Three quarters of this comes to £2,529.09. As the trip most likely presented a dual benefit, I think Lloyds should pay 50% of this cost. So, Lloyds should pay Mrs G £1,265 • I’m satisfied the loss here relates to Mrs G as the funds were raised through finance

-- 7 of 13 --

against Mrs G and her husband’s home • Both Mrs G and her husband are named on the evidence I have of their journey from Mrs G’s parents’ country to the UK. The total cost here is €45.98. That means Lloyds should pay half of this, €22.99 • The evidence Mrs G has sent for her flight back to her parents’ country from the UK, only names her. So, Lloyds should pay this full cost of £170.99 • Mrs G has sent in evidence of her two nights’ stay in London. They were £112.50 and £230.30. So, in total, Lloyds should pay Mrs G £342.80 Call costs Mrs G has sent in information to show the costs paid by her husband’s company, and which she says was deducted from his salary for calls made to Lloyds from her husbands’ office in Africa. Mrs G has also said that calls were made from her parents’ home, but she cannot provide any evidence of this as that landline has been terminated. Given these are not Mrs G’s losses, I can not make an award for these in my decision. That’s because Mrs G is the eligible complainant and the rules under which I work only permit me to make awards of compensation to an eligible complainant. Work visa and loss of potential earnings Mrs G says that Lloyds should pay compensation for her loss of potential income. That’s because her inability to access her bank statements meant she could not provide the embassy with information it required. Mrs G has sent in the web address to support this position. Having given this careful thought, I think this prospective loss is too far removed and that it isn’t reasonably foreseeable for me to direct Lloyds to pay this. I note Mrs G says her skillset was in demand and she had two job offers. I haven’t seen compelling evidence of this. But even if Mrs G did submit this, I don’t think it would make a difference. I say that because Mrs G was on a spouse visa since 2017 and she had not changed this to a working one before the accounts were blocked in 2021, and as COVID was a factor, I can’t say Mrs G would have been able to fulfil a new job role. This is further supported by her having a very young child at the time and then shortly later expecting another. Mrs G would always have needed to apply for any type of visa when her existing one would have expired to enable her to continue living in that country. So, I don’t think its fair Lloyds pays for any costs related to obtaining visas. Deprivation of access to funds As per my earlier finding, Lloyds would likely have given Mrs G access to her current account funds had it followed its correct process in July 2021. It is the approach of this service to award 8% simple annual interest, at the time this event occurred, as a means to compensate a consumer for being deprived of funds they would otherwise have had. I note Mrs G says she would have got more interest in her country of residence, but she opted to keep the funds in the UK. I note too that as late as 2025, some time after the account was unrestricted, the funds were still in Mrs G’s Lloyds account. So, I am planning on telling Lloyds to pay 8% simple annual interest* on the balance of the account from 20 July 2021 until Mrs G was given her access back in July 2023.

-- 8 of 13 --

Credit Card interest, charges and inability to pay off balance Our Investigator said Lloyds should restructure the credit card account as if no interest or charges had accrued up to 1 February 2024 when Mrs G stated she finally received the account statements. Mrs G says Lloyds should do this up until April 2025 when she was able to pay off the balance as her online banking didn’t allow her to do this until Lloyds fixed the issue at its end. In short, Mrs G argues that it was Lloyds’ fault that she didn’t pay off her balance until April 2025 because Lloyds’ online banking would not let her. Mrs G has sent in screenshots that show in April 2025 that she could not affect the payment at her end. And a call recording she has sent also from April 2025, shows that one of Lloyds’ staff members was able to fix this for her over the phone for her to then make the payment using her online banking. Mrs G says that before the account restriction issues in 2021, she would always pay her credit card balance in full each month. The limited evidence I have for this period suggests this was the case. Mrs G feels strongly about this point, and our Investigator felt Mrs G could have done more to affect this payment by calling Lloyds much sooner after she received the statements in February 2024. That would, after all, have been when Mrs G would have been able to satisfy herself she wasn’t still being held liable for any fraudulent transactions. Lloyds have sent this service substantive internal records, and one shows that in August 2021 there’s a note which, amongst other things, says “…advised caller they said they need IB to pay their cc bill so we are going to freeze interest”. This note is somewhat ambiguous, but it suggests a conversation about using internet banking was needed to pay the credit card bill. Mrs G says she raised this point with Lloyds but unfortunately Lloyds do not have most of the call recordings. Given this note I have seen, and because I’m persuaded on balance Mrs G relied on advice from Lloyds, I think it’s fair Lloyds restructure the credit card account as if no interest or charges had accrued up to the date Mrs G made the payment to clear the balance in April 2025. Credit file Mrs G is concerned her credit file rating has been affected by Lloyds’ actions when it restricted her current account and credit card. From what I have seen, I think this is unlikely as Mrs G always had a positive balance in her current account and it appears the minimum payments were being made by direct debit to her credit card. Having said that, this is something Lloyds should look into and amend if there is any negative marker it has applied against Mrs G. Credit card reward points and charges Mrs G is unhappy she was charged for fees related to her credit card reward points scheme – a benefit she says she couldn’t access. If that is the case, Lloyds should refund Mrs G these payments and restructure the account accordingly. Distress and Inconvenience Our Investigator recommended Mrs G be compensated £750 for the distress and

-- 9 of 13 --

inconvenience caused by Lloyds. Mrs G feels her award should be at least £20,000. In reaching what I think is fair compensation, I have looked at this service’s published guidance on awards for distress and inconvenience. Having done so, I’m satisfied Lloyds’ error caused Mrs G sustained distress and inconvenience which caused severe disruption to her daily life, and which lasted for around over two years. So, I am persuaded a much more substantive award is warranted. Having given this considerable thought, I am planning on directing Lloyds to pay Mrs G £2,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it has caused. In reaching this amount, I have weighed up many factors. Broadly, the key ones are: • Mrs G was unable to support her family with substantive funds she held in the UK at a time of great uncertainty due to COVID and her managing a young family • Mrs G’s pleas for help over a sustained period did not prompt Lloyds to consider other means to help Mrs G who was in a vulnerable situation • Mrs G was unable to make critical life plans due to Lloyds’ errors • Mrs G would have lived in fear for two years that all her money had been taken by fraudsters. And this would have caused substantive and significant anxiety So, in summary, to put things right, I am planning on directing Lloyds to: - Pay Mrs G £1,778.19 and €22.99 for flights and accommodation costs which she incurred to visit Lloyds’ branch - Pay 8% simple annual interest* on the balance of the current account from 20 July 2021 until Mrs G was given her access back in July 2023 - Credit Card account: if things had happened as they should have, I think it's most likely Mrs G would have cleared the balance in full each month - as that's what she did before B removed access to the account. So, to put things right B should: o Reconstruct the account assuming Mrs G would have repaid the statement balance in full each month. Based on the reconstruction Lloyds should: ▪ Once Mrs G’s actual payments are greater than what she would have paid, Lloyds should refund these amounts ▪ Pay 8% simple annual interest* from the point at which Mrs G's actual repayments were greater than what would have paid had she repaid the balance in full in July 2021 - Remove any negative credit file markers in the event Lloyds have applied any against Mrs G - Refund any charges it made to Mrs G’s account for the credit card reward points scheme - Pay Mrs G £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience it’s caused” The deadline for both parties to respond has now passed.

-- 10 of 13 --

Lloyds say it agrees with what I was planning on deciding. And if Mrs G accepts, it would require Mrs G’s account details for where she would like the settlement paid to. Lloyds added that the interest and/or charges will be refunded back to the credit card account. Mrs G wanted to clarify a few points and provide further information. The key points she made were: • Mrs G’s mobile number hasn’t changed since she moved to Africa and was linked to her bank account with Lloyds. Because of this, Lloyds cannot rely on this as one of the reasons for blocking her account access • Maternity leave in the country Mrs G now lives in is typically four months. Due to their difficult family financial situation, Mrs G began searching and applying for jobs. And when she attempted to renew her spouse visa for the second time, this occurred after Lloyds had blocked Mrs G’s accounts. Mrs G submitted a visa appointment document conforming her appointment was scheduled for February 2022 • Because Mrs G was unable to access her bank accounts and obtain the required bank statements, she could not provide the necessary financial documents to the embassy. This directly affected Mrs G’s ability to proceed with her visa renewal application which would have included permission to work As both parties have responded, and the deadline for responses has passed, I will now decide this complaint. 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 have decided to uphold this complaint. My reasons for doing so are contained in my provisional decision – as above. Before I respond to Mrs G’s further points in response to my provisional decision, I’d like to remind both parties that our rules allow me to focus on the key issues. 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 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 Mrs G and Lloyds have said before reaching my decision. I’d add too that under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), the Financial Ombudsman Service is designed to resolve disputes between consumers and financial firms quickly and with minimal formality. We are an alternative to the court system. Mrs G says her mobile number hasn’t changed since she moved to Africa and was linked to her bank account with Lloyds. Because of this, Lloyds cannot rely on this as one of the reasons for blocking her account access. But I’ve already explained that Lloyds key reason for blocking her accounts wad due to fraudsters having gained access. And as I’ve said before, Lloyds has a duty to protect its customer from financial harm - particularly fraud. It also has legal and regulatory obligations to adhere to. So, Lloyds did nothing wrong in blocking Mrs G’s accounts whether she had or hadn’t changed her telephone number. I note what Mrs G says about her needing bank statements to obtain a work permitting visa and how important it was for her family’s financial circumstances that she was able to work.

-- 11 of 13 --

But Mrs G re-emphasising this point doesn’t change my mind based on what I said about this in my provisional decision. For ease of reference, here is what I said: “Having given this careful thought, I think this prospective loss is too far removed and that it isn’t reasonably foreseeable for me to direct Lloyds to pay this. I note Mrs G says her skillset was in demand and she had two job offers. I haven’t seen compelling evidence of this. But even if Mrs G did submit this, I don’t think it would make a difference. I say that because Mrs G was on a spouse visa since 2017 and she had not changed this to a working one before the accounts were blocked in 2021, and as COVID was a factor, I can’t say Mrs G would have been able to fulfil a new job role. This is further supported by her having a very young child at the time and then shortly later expecting another”. Putting things right To put things right, Lloyds must now: - Pay Mrs G £1,778.19 and €22.99 for flights and accommodation costs which she incurred to visit Lloyds’ branch - Pay 8% simple annual interest* on the balance of the current account from 20 July 2021 until Mrs G was given her access back in July 2023 - Credit Card account: if things had happened as they should have, I think it's most likely Mrs G would have cleared the balance in full each month - as that's what she did before B removed access to the account. So, to put things right B should: o Reconstruct the account assuming Mrs G would have repaid the statement balance in full each month. Based on the reconstruction Lloyds should: ▪ Once Mrs G’s actual payments are greater than what she would have paid, Lloyds should refund these amounts ▪ Pay 8% simple annual interest* from the point at which Mrs G's actual repayments were greater than what would have paid had she repaid the balance in full in July 2021 - Remove any negative credit file markers in the event Lloyds have applied any against Mrs G - Refund any charges it made to Mrs G’s account for the credit card reward points scheme - Pay Mrs G £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience it’s caused *If Lloyds considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mrs G how much it’s taken off. It should also give Mrs G a tax deduction certificate if she asks for one, so she can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Mrs G will need to provide bank account details for where the above compensation should be paid to. My final decision For the reasons above, I have decided to uphold this complaint. I now direct Lloyds Bank PLC to put things right as directed above.

-- 12 of 13 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Ketan Nagla Ombudsman

-- 13 of 13 --