By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 12/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
There isn’t one fixed “HMRC restriction” duration because restrictions typically arise through different mechanisms: a bank’s compliance freeze (often linked to HMRC context but controlled by the bank), a court-led restriction (where the timetable is set by the court), or an HMRC enforcement route that changes how money moves rather than “freezing” an account in the everyday sense.
What can be said with confidence is that some routes have defined legal timeboxes (notably those linked to suspicious activity reporting), while others can run from days to months depending on how quickly the underlying issue is resolved and whether multiple providers (bank + payment processor) restrict activity at the same time.
This article is educational and not financial advice.
First: what does “HMRC restrict a bank account” actually mean?
In everyday language, people say “HMRC froze our account” when the operational outcome is the same: money can’t move normally. In reality, the restriction is usually one of these:
A bank-imposed restriction (compliance/fraud/AML controls), sometimes triggered by activity that relates to tax checks, trading patterns, or documentation gaps.
A court-driven restriction (where the bank follows an order).
An HMRC enforcement action that affects funds or payment flows, even if it isn’t a classic “freeze”.
To understand the difference between (1) and (3), it helps to separate HMRC enforcement from bank compliance freezes: see HMRC enforcement vs bank compliance freezes.
The three main “timeframe buckets” (and why they differ)
1) Bank compliance freezes (often the most common “restriction” people experience)
Banks have legal duties under frameworks including the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. If activity can’t be reconciled quickly, a bank may restrict incoming/outgoing payments while it requests information.
How long can this last?
There is no single statutory clock for a bank’s internal review. In practice, this bucket ranges from days to weeks, and can extend if: information arrives in stages, transaction chains are complex, or multiple linked accounts/providers also apply restrictions.
If you want the “what it is and what typically triggers it” explainer (rather than timing), see HMRC freeze a business bank account.
2) Suspicious activity reporting timeboxes (a defined legal structure that can extend)
Some restrictions link to suspicious activity reporting and consent processes. The National Crime Agency’s SARs guidance explains the SARs regime at a high level, and POCA provides the underlying legal framework.
How long can this last?
This route is often described as having (a) an initial notice period and (b) a moratorium period if consent is refused, with possible court extensions in some circumstances. The key point is that this is one of the few areas where “days/weeks/months” can be driven by defined stages rather than a purely operational review.
3) Court-led restrictions (timelines follow the court process)
Where a restriction is court-led, the bank’s discretion is limited: it must comply with the order’s scope and terms. For example, guidance on account freezing orders illustrates how a court process can restrict dealing with funds while matters are resolved.
How long can this last?
Court timetables vary widely. Some orders are time-limited; others last until varied or discharged. This means the practical duration can be weeks or months, driven by hearings, evidence timetables, and whether an order is extended.
So where does HMRC “enforcement” fit into timeframes?
Not every HMRC collection mechanism is a “freeze”. For example, HMRC’s Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) guidance explains a route that can result in money being taken directly from accounts in certain conditions.
That’s operationally different from a bank compliance freeze: it is more like a targeted recovery mechanism than a bank “locking” the account for review. For related context, see what HMRC Direct Recovery of Debts is and whether HMRC can take money directly from a business bank account.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Bank compliance freeze linked to AML/fraud checks | Restrictions while bank verifies activity | Often days to weeks; cashflow can stall even if sales continue |
| SAR-linked pathway (notice/moratorium stages) | Dealing with funds may be paused pending consent/outcome | Can move from days into longer staged periods depending on consent and extensions |
| Court-led restriction (e.g., freezing order) | Bank follows the order’s terms | Duration follows court timetable; can be weeks/months depending on hearings and extensions |
| HMRC DRD-style enforcement | Funds may be recovered subject to the process | Not a classic “freeze”; can be discrete steps rather than an open-ended restriction |
| Restriction coincides with processor/acquirer holds | Multiple providers restrict payouts | Timelines can lengthen because resolution must happen across more than one firm |
| Insolvency context | Access controlled by insolvency process | Restrictions may persist until account control and permissions are clarified |
The “why” is less important than the mechanism
Two businesses can both say “HMRC is involved” and have completely different timelines. The driver is the mechanism: bank compliance review vs court process vs enforcement route.
Multi-provider stacking (bank + payment provider)
Even when a bank restriction is lifted, cashflow can remain constrained if card acquirers or payment service providers hold payouts independently. Provider conduct and complaints routes differ depending on the firm’s regulatory status, which is why the FCA’s payment services and e-money overview is relevant background reading.
Operational complexity and evidence trails
Longer timelines commonly correlate with complex transaction chains (many counterparties, rapid inflows/outflows, cross-border elements), documentation gaps, or disputes that trigger additional checks.
What “restricted” can look like day-to-day (and why businesses feel “frozen”)
A restriction might block:
outbound payments (suppliers, payroll, tax payments)
inbound payments (customers can’t pay into the account)
both directions (account is effectively unusable)
It can also be partial (certain payment types or counterparties blocked). In practical terms, this is why the distinction between “restricted” and “closed” matters for trading continuity: see difference between a frozen and closed business bank account.
In an insolvency context, restrictions can intersect with who is authorised to control funds and what banks require before changing access. For that angle, see what happens if HMRC freezes an account during insolvency.
Scenario-level / Process-level / Outcome-level
| Level | What to focus on | What it tells you about “how long” |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario-level | HMRC context vs bank compliance vs court process | Whether there’s a defined legal timetable or an operational review |
| Process-level | Which rails are blocked (inbound/outbound), and whether other providers are also holding funds | Whether resolution depends on one firm or multiple firms in parallel |
| Outcome-level | Cashflow consequences (ability to pay suppliers, payroll, refunds) | Whether the business experiences the restriction as a short disruption or a prolonged continuity risk |
Compare Business Bank Accounts
Restrictions often expose how dependent operations are on basic banking features (payment rails, access controls, support routes, and integrations). For an informational comparison of business account options and features, see Business bank accounts hub.
Frequently Asked Questions
There isn’t a single “HMRC maximum” because HMRC is not always the party applying the restriction. Many restrictions are bank-imposed compliance actions, and those do not run on one statutory countdown.
Where courts are involved, duration is governed by the order and court timetable. Where suspicious activity reporting timeboxes apply, the law provides staged periods (notice/moratorium), and those can be extended in certain circumstances.
Banks often provide limited detail during compliance restrictions, particularly where financial crime controls are involved. Legal and regulatory constraints can limit what can be shared while checks are ongoing.
That lack of detail is one reason businesses perceive restrictions as indefinite. The practical timeline is usually driven by the underlying mechanism (internal review vs court process) rather than the amount of explanation provided at the outset.
In many day-to-day cases, the restriction is a bank compliance freeze that happens in an HMRC context (for example, tax checks, trading pattern changes, documentation issues), rather than HMRC directly freezing the bank account.
That’s why separating enforcement routes from compliance restrictions matters. The relevant distinctions are covered in HMRC enforcement vs bank compliance freezes.
Restrictions can be configured in different ways depending on the bank’s controls or the terms of a court order. Some businesses find money can still enter the account but cannot be used normally; others find inbound payments are also blocked.
This difference changes the “felt” duration. If incoming funds keep arriving but can’t be deployed, the restriction can create a working-capital trap even if sales continue.
That pathway is one of the few that is structured in stages, but it does not guarantee a fixed end date. The process can move from an initial notice stage into longer periods, and court extensions can apply in some cases.
The most reliable statement is that this route is more “timeboxed” than a standard bank internal review, but it can still extend into longer periods depending on the facts and legal steps.
Not necessarily. DRD is an HMRC enforcement mechanism that can result in money being recovered directly from accounts in certain circumstances, and it is different from a bank compliance restriction.
For a mechanism-led explanation, see what HMRC Direct Recovery of Debts is. For how direct recovery differs from “account restriction” language, see can HMRC take money directly from a business bank account.
Refunds can become difficult if outgoing payments are blocked or if the payment provider imposes its own holds. Even when sales continue, the ability to complete the full payment loop (sale > settlement > refund if needed) can be disrupted.
For the specific refund angle in an HMRC context, see can you issue refunds during an HMRC freeze. Refund friction can also affect dispute rates, which can prolong restrictions elsewhere in the payments stack.
Some businesses can, but opening an account and using it as a full operating account are not the same thing. Provider checks, disclosures, and risk controls can affect onboarding and the ability to connect payment rails.
This is covered in can you open a new business bank account if one is frozen. Even where an additional account exists, restrictions can still affect settlements or counterparties depending on the broader situation.
It can. In insolvency contexts, banks often need clarity on authority and control over the account, and restrictions can persist while that is established and documented.
For an insolvency-focused walkthrough, see what happens if HMRC freezes an account during insolvency. The key point is that the timeline may follow insolvency process steps as much as it follows HMRC or bank review steps.
Banks have complaints processes, and some businesses may be eligible to escalate unresolved complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service’s banking complaints guidance (eligibility depends on business status and size).
FSCS protection relates to bank failure, not account restrictions, but it is often mentioned in the same conversations. The FSCS protection for banks and building societies explains what FSCS does and does not do.
“How long?” feels like a countdown, but restrictions usually behave more like a dependency problem: the restriction ends when the controlling mechanism is satisfied.
If it’s a bank compliance freeze, that mechanism is the bank’s ability to evidence and explain activity under its legal duties. If it’s court-led, the mechanism is the court timetable and the order’s scope. If multiple providers are involved, the slowest dependency can define the real-world duration.
This is why two firms in apparently similar “HMRC situations” can see very different timeframes.
The most useful framing is to identify which mechanism is controlling the restriction (bank review, SAR timeboxes, court order, or enforcement route), and then understand whether resolution depends on one firm or several firms in parallel.
Sources & References