By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 28/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
After a Tide account closure, the Financial Ombudsman Service typically focuses less on whether Tide “had to” keep the account open and more on whether the closure and its consequences were handled fairly and reasonably: notice, communication, access changes, treatment of any remaining balance, and whether the complaints process itself was handled properly.
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What the Ombudsman is actually deciding in a “Tide closure” complaint
A closure complaint usually contains two separate issues that can get bundled together:
The decision to end the relationship (closing the account).
How the closure was carried out (notice, access, payments, and remaining funds).
The Ombudsman can look at both, but the second tends to be where complaints become clearer and more evidence-led: timelines, messages, stated notice, what stopped working, what was requested, and what happened to funds.
For context on how “restricted” differs from “closed” in Tide scenarios (which affects what evidence exists and what still works), see Tide account restricted vs closed: what it means.
The Ombudsman’s “fair and reasonable” lens in closure disputes
The Ombudsman’s published guidance on bank account closures flags common tests: reasonable notice, whether special circumstances justified shorter notice, whether the firm acted consistently with the contract, and whether it handled the customer fairly in the process. A useful starting point is the Ombudsman’s guidance page on bank account closures.
That same guidance also highlights that different rule sets can sit behind different account types (for example, basic accounts and payment account frameworks), so “what is fair” is often anchored to the type of account and the terms that applied.
If you are unsure whether a Tide account is best thought of as a bank account or an e-money account (which can change the language used in notices, and the mechanics of how balances are held), the overview in App business accounts: bank or e-money? Check the FCA register is the cleanest way to frame it.
Typical areas the Ombudsman tests in Tide-closure complaints
1) Notice: what was given, and what the terms said
A common complaint theme is “I didn’t get enough time”. The Ombudsman’s closure guidance notes that banks should usually give at least two months’ notice, with exceptions in special cases (for example suspected fraud or abusive behaviour). See bank account closures.
In Tide scenarios, what matters most is the evidence trail: what notice was communicated, what the product terms allow, and whether the practical shutdown matched the notice (for example, whether access ended earlier than the stated end date). The operational side of “what stopped working” is covered in Tide closure notice: cards, direct debits, access.
2) Communication quality and complaint handling
Closure situations often involve templated updates and limited explanations. That can feel one-sided, but the Ombudsman typically still tests whether communications were clear enough about what was happening (closure vs restriction), what would stop working, and what the business needed to do to progress the situation.
Tide also publishes its complaint handling pathway (how to raise a complaint, and the timelines it aims for) on How to raise a complaint. Where the complaint is about process (delays responding, unclear outcomes, mishandled correspondence), this becomes directly relevant evidence.
3) Remaining funds: why delays happen and what “reasonable” means
Complaints often centre on “my account was closed but the balance wasn’t returned”. The Ombudsman generally looks at the reasons for any delay (for example: pending disputes, internal checks, or information gaps) and whether the firm progressed matters in a reasonable timeframe, with proportionate requests.
If you want the Tide-specific operational framing of this issue (timelines, typical blockers, and practical impacts), see How long remaining funds can take after a Tide account closure.
4) Information requests and limits on what can be said
Many closure complaints stall because the business and the provider disagree on “what evidence is enough”, or because the provider cannot share detail.
The Ombudsman can take a wider view of internal records than the customer sees, but it will still look at whether requests were relevant and proportionate, and whether the customer was given a workable path to resolution.
For why explanations can sometimes be limited (and what that means in practice for correspondence), see Why Tide can’t explain a restriction: tipping-off and communication limits.
5) Practical impact and “consequential loss”
Even where a closure decision stands, complaints can succeed partly on impact if the closure was handled poorly (for example: avoidable delays returning funds, or avoidable confusion leading to failed payments).
The Ombudsman usually expects a clear chain: what happened, what costs followed, and what could reasonably have been avoided by better handling.
This is where evidence packs matter most: invoices, payroll schedules, penalties, and timestamped messages. (More on “what banks ask for” during ongoing monitoring and reviews is summarised in Bank review evidence packs: what UK banks request.)
6) Jurisdiction: can the Ombudsman consider the complaint at all?
A practical gate is whether the complainant is eligible (many small businesses are, but not all). The Ombudsman’s eligibility overview is set out on Make a complaint, including size thresholds for micro-enterprises and SMEs.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Closure with stated notice, but access ended earlier | Ombudsman focuses on whether the shutdown matched the notice and terms | Stronger if you can evidence the “early stop” (screenshots, declined payments, messages) |
| Closure with limited explanation | Ombudsman tests clarity of process and fairness, not a guaranteed right to detailed reasons | Often becomes a question of “was the customer told what would happen next?” |
| Balance not returned for an extended period | Ombudsman tests whether delays were justified and progressed reasonably | Evidence of repeated chasing and clear harm tends to carry weight |
| Repeated requests for similar documents | Ombudsman tests proportionality and whether requests were workable | Stronger if you can show what was supplied, when, and how it mapped to requests |
| Business claims reputational / discriminatory treatment | Ombudsman tests evidence and fairness in handling | Stronger if you can point to inconsistent treatment vs stated policy and clear comparators |
| Complaint not answered within published timelines | Ombudsman can consider service failings and resulting distress/inconvenience | Stronger if you have clear dates, acknowledgement, and final response timing |
Scenario Table
| Level | What tends to be assessed | Evidence that usually matters most |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario-level | What the customer says happened (closure vs restriction; timeline; claimed harms) | Timeline narrative; key dates; what specifically stopped working; what was requested |
| Process-level | Whether the firm handled the closure and complaint process fairly and clearly | Messages, complaint acknowledgements, final response letters, stated notice, internal consistency |
| Outcome-level | Whether remedies are appropriate (redress, practical steps, service compensation) | Quantified losses with documentation; proof of avoidable delay; impact statements grounded in facts |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide positions its business accounts as app-led business banking, with different product structures possible depending on the account type.
For an account-structure overview (and how Tide compares on features and costs in our wider Tide cluster), see our neutral review: Tide business bank account review.
Frequently Asked Questions
It depends on whether the business meets the Ombudsman’s eligibility criteria (size thresholds matter, and the relevant category can be micro-enterprise or SME depending on circumstances).
The Ombudsman sets out who it can help on its Make a complaint page, including the headline thresholds it applies.
Even where a company is eligible by size, the Ombudsman will still check it has jurisdiction over the firm and product involved, and that the complaint was first raised with the provider.
In Tide situations, where account structures can vary, it is often helpful (for clarity rather than argument) to frame the account type using App business accounts: bank or e-money? Check the FCA register.
A common starting point is whether there was reasonable notice and whether the provider followed the contract and its own stated process.
The Ombudsman’s published guidance on bank account closures highlights notice expectations and exceptions, and it also signals that terms and account type can change what rules apply.
In practice, this is why closure complaints often turn on simple evidence: the notice wording, the dates, and what stopped working when.
If you need the Tide-specific operational mapping of what tends to change during closure, the mechanics are set out in Tide closure notice: cards, direct debits, access.
Not automatically. The Ombudsman can still assess fairness and reasonableness without requiring the provider to disclose everything to the customer, especially where there are legitimate constraints on what can be shared.
What usually matters more is whether the customer was given enough clarity about what would happen next (closure vs restriction, what access remains, what information is needed to progress the situation).
For the practical “why explanations can be limited” framing in Tide scenarios, see Why Tide can’t explain a restriction: tipping-off and communication limits.
Tide publishes its own complaint handling timelines and escalation pathway on How to raise a complaint, including the timeframe it targets for acknowledgement and resolution and when it will issue a final response.
Separately, the Ombudsman explains typical business response timeframes (including where 15-day complaint handling applies for certain payment services issues) on its Time limits page. In closure disputes, it’s common for a complaint to combine “closure decision/process” with “payments and access impacts”, so timelines can become fact-specific.
The Ombudsman typically looks at why funds were not returned sooner, whether the provider progressed checks proportionately, and whether the customer was given a workable route to resolve the issue.
The complaint often becomes evidence-led: what was requested, what was supplied, and what happened after each step.
If you want a Tide-specific operational explanation of why remaining funds can take time (and how that tends to affect payroll, suppliers, and tax payments), see How long remaining funds can take after a Tide account closure.
That guide is often useful as a “timeline vocabulary” for describing what happened, without assuming the reason for the closure.
Outcomes vary, but closure complaints are not typically treated as an automatic right to ongoing banking.
The Ombudsman’s closure guidance focuses on fairness in notice and handling, and on what would put things right in the circumstances.
The most relevant reference point is its page on bank account closures, which frames expectations around closure practice rather than guaranteeing continuation.
In practice, even where reopening is discussed, remedies commonly centre on practical steps (for example, clearer communication, correcting records, or accelerating a balance return) and compensation where appropriate.
This is why complaints that separate “closure decision” from “closure handling” tend to be easier to evaluate.
It can matter for the mechanics of what happens to funds and what “closure” means operationally, even where the customer experience feels similar.
This is one reason the Ombudsman’s closure guidance references different rule sets depending on account type and terms (see bank account closures).
For Tide-specific framing, it helps to describe the account type without guessing. A practical way to do this is explained in App business accounts: bank or e-money? Check the FCA register, which is designed to keep the discussion factual and product-accurate.
The strongest evidence is usually a structured timeline:
- Request received
- What was submitted
- Confirmation or rejection
- What was requested next
- The elapsed time between steps
That reduces ambiguity and helps separate “delay caused by missing information” from “delay caused by internal handling”.
If the dispute involves repeated or evolving evidence requests, it can help to understand what “good practice” evidence packs look like in financial services reviews.
Our wider reference guide summarises common categories in Bank review evidence packs: what UK banks request. This is not a guarantee of what Tide will request, but it can help explain the categories being discussed.
Where the Ombudsman finds service failure (for example poor communication, avoidable delay, or mishandling of the complaint process), it may consider compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman sets out typical award ranges and how it thinks about impact on its page on Compensation for distress or inconvenience.
For business complainants, the Ombudsman will still look for a clear account of impact, grounded in facts rather than assumptions.
Where the claim is for financial loss (fees, penalties, additional costs), evidence usually matters more than narrative – invoices, statements, and documented deadlines.
Sometimes, yes – particularly where the complaint is narrowly about payment services issues or about charges/notice mechanics rather than the broader closure handling.
The Ombudsman’s consumer-facing bank account complaints page notes different response windows for different complaint types: see Bank accounts.
In practice, closure complaints often involve multiple strands (notice, access changes, payment failures, remaining funds, complaint delays).
When these strands are separated and dated, it becomes easier to understand which timeline and which evidence applies to each part.
Account closure complaints tend to become unwinnable when they are framed as “prove the hidden reason”.
The constraint is structural:
- Closure decisions can be tied to internal risk thresholds
- Contractual termination rights
- In some cases legal limits on disclosure
That creates a mismatch between what the customer wants to know and what the provider can say.
The complaints that remain assessable (and therefore more likely to reach a clear outcome) are those framed around observable handling:
- What notice was given
- What access changed and when
- How clearly this was explained
- Whether information requests were workable
- Whether any remaining balance was processed in a way that looks proportionate to the circumstances
This is the part of the system where facts, dates, and documents tend to matter more than inference.
Related Content
