By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 28/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
There isn’t one fixed “Tide closure payout time”.
- In straightforward cases, any residual balance can move quickly once the account is settled and a destination account is validated.
- In more complex cases, release can be delayed by in-flight payments, card refunds, disputes/chargebacks, compliance checks, or product-structure constraints (for example, e-money vs partner-bank arrangements).
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What counts as “remaining funds” after a Tide closure
When people ask about “remaining funds”, they often mean one of four different things – and each can follow a different timeline:
A positive balance that was already available before closure
If an account is closed while showing a balance, the key question becomes whether that balance is truly “final” (no pending holds, reversals, fees, or operational checks left).Money that arrives after closure
Incoming bank transfers, card refunds, or scheme reversals can still be initiated by third parties even if the receiving account is closed, but they may be returned, rerouted, or handled manually depending on the payment type and the provider’s process (see Tide incoming payments and returns after closure).Refunds and reversals (especially card-related)
A customer refund can be processed by a merchant after the underlying business account has closed. Tide’s own closure guidance includes troubleshooting for refunds landing in a closed Tide account, and describes the type of bank statement it may request to send the money onward (a recent statement showing account details and identity) as part of its process on the Managing your Tide account closure page.Disputes, chargebacks, and settlement adjustments
Card schemes and payment chains can create “after the fact” adjustments. Even where day-to-day access ends, residual liabilities can still exist, which can affect whether funds are immediately releasable (see Chargebacks and who can withhold funds in EMI-style chains).
Why the timeline varies after a Tide account is closed
1) “Closure requested” is not always “everything is settled”
Tide’s closure information focuses on reducing residual items before closure (for example, moving the balance to zero and cancelling ongoing payments) on its Managing your Tide account closure page. If an account closes with open items still attached to it, the practical timeline is driven by how quickly those items can be resolved.
Related background on what typically changes at the point of closure is covered in Tide closure notice: what happens to cards and direct debits.
2) Payment rails have different “end states”
If money is being moved out by bank transfer, the rail matters:
Faster Payments are typically near-instant, but Pay.UK notes they can sometimes take up to two hours and some can take longer depending on participants and timing; that operational reality is described on How Faster Payments work.
Bacs/other processes may have longer operational cycles, and closure mid-processing can change the outcome (paid, rejected, or returned). This is why “what happened to my outgoing payment?” can be a separate question from “when do I get my remaining balance?” — see Tide closes account mid-processing: outgoing payments.
3) Validation steps can be the bottleneck
A common post-closure pattern is: funds exist, but the provider won’t send them until it is satisfied the destination account belongs to the right business/person (and that the request is legitimate).
Tide’s own closure troubleshooting describes requesting a recent statement to evidence account ownership when a refund has arrived into a closed Tide account, on its Managing your Tide account closure page. That’s an example of “validation work” creating a delay that has nothing to do with the payment rail itself.
4) Reviews, restrictions, and communication limits can extend timelines
Some closures follow a period of restriction or review rather than a simple customer-initiated closure. In those cases, the timeline can be dominated by the review process and what evidence is requested, as set out in Tide account under review: stages, timelines, outcomes and Tide compliance review documents: what’s requested and why it repeats.
Separately, there can be genuine limits on what a provider can explain in real time in certain scenarios; the practical impact is covered in Why Tide can’t explain a restriction: tipping-off limits.
5) The legal product structure can change how “remaining funds” are handled
A Tide “business account” experience can sit on top of different regulated structures. The FCA’s consumer guidance explains that non-bank payment providers (including EMIs) protect money via safeguarding rather than FSCS deposit protection, and notes that getting money back after a provider fails may take time; see Using payment service providers.
How to check whether a product is “bank” or “e-money” in practice is covered in App business accounts: bank or e-money?.
Where e-money is involved, the terms can contain specific post-closure mechanics. For example, Tide’s published platform terms describe withdrawal access and longer withdrawal windows for certain non-GBP e-money balances in the Tide platform terms (PDF).
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| You moved the balance out before closing | No residual funds to release | Closure is mostly “admin”: access ends, but no payout wait |
| Closure happens with a positive “available” balance and no visible pending items | Funds may be transferable once destination details are validated | Timing is often driven by identity/ownership checks rather than payment rails |
| Outgoing payment was mid-processing when closure happened | Payment may settle, reject, or return depending on rail and timing | You may see a temporary mismatch between “expected” and “final” balance |
| Incoming bank transfers arrive after closure | Sender may see rejection/return | Cashflow disruption until payers use updated details |
| Card refund arrives after closure | Provider may route onward after checks | Additional validation steps can be required before onward transfer |
| Disputes/chargebacks are open or likely | Funds can remain encumbered by potential adjustments | “Remaining funds” may not be treated as final until liabilities resolve |
| Closure follows a restriction/review | Timeline depends on review steps and evidence | Access can end before a residual-balance decision is completed |
| Non-GBP e-money balance exists at closure | Terms may allow withdrawal-only access for a period | Withdrawal can be possible even after app access ends, via support routes |
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level (what’s happening) | Process-level (what has to complete) | Outcome-level (what you usually observe) |
|---|---|---|
| Balance looks positive but recent activity exists | Provider reconciles pending holds, fees, reversals, and payment returns | Release waits until the “final ledger” position is clear |
| Funds need to be sent to another bank | Provider validates the destination account and authority to receive funds | Transfer happens after validation rather than immediately on closure day |
| Refunds/settlement events occur after closure | Provider identifies the event, links it to the closed account, and decides the routing | Money may be returned to origin, or routed onward after manual steps |
| Compliance review overlaps with closure | Provider completes checks, requests evidence, and records decisions | Release can be deferred, and explanations may be limited |
| Product is e-money rather than deposit-taking | Safeguarding and redemption mechanics apply; terms govern withdrawal routes | Timelines and access routes can differ from high-street bank expectations |
| Complaint route becomes relevant | Provider complaint handling then ombudsman route if eligible | Outcomes may focus on process fairness and reasonable handling, not reinstating banking access |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide is widely used by UK SMEs, but it’s important to separate (a) the app experience from (b) the regulated account structure and its closure mechanics.
Our neutral overview of features, costs, and positioning is in the Tide business account review, and it can be read alongside the “bank vs e-money” explainers where closure outcomes differ in practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Tide’s public closure guidance focuses more on how to close and how to avoid residual items (for example, ensuring the balance is zero and managing ongoing payments) than on a single guaranteed payout time; see Managing your Tide account closure.
That usually indicates the release timeline is conditional – it depends on what’s left attached to the account at closure.
Where residual events happen post-closure (such as a refund arriving after the account is shut), Tide’s guidance describes a process (including requesting a recent statement to confirm ownership before sending money onward).
The existence of that validation step means time can be driven by checks and case handling, not just payment-rail speed.
A positive balance at closure doesn’t always mean it’s immediately releasable. Providers often need to ensure the balance is “final” – meaning pending payments, reversals, fees, or returns have either completed or been accounted for.
If the closure followed a restriction or review, the “remaining funds” question can sit inside a wider decision process. The distinction between restricted vs closed states (and what each typically implies) is covered in Tide restricted vs closed: what it means, and review timelines are outlined in Tide account under review: stages and outcomes.
Refunds can be initiated by merchants after closure, and the operational question becomes “how does the provider handle a refund that lands after access has ended?”.
Tide’s closure troubleshooting explicitly addresses this scenario and describes the evidence it may request to send money to another bank account, on Managing your Tide account closure.
The edge case is when there are multiple refund events, partial refunds, or refunds linked to disputed transactions.
In those situations, providers may need to reconcile what each refund corresponds to before sending it onward, which can extend timelines beyond the “refund processed” timestamp shown by the merchant.
They can. Even if day-to-day account access ends, disputes and chargebacks can create future debits/credits against the closed account’s economic position. That can make providers cautious about releasing a balance as “final” until potential adjustments are resolved.
This is most visible where there is a chain of entities (merchant acquirer, processor, wallet/EMI, and account provider) and more than one party may withhold or reserve funds pending dispute outcomes.
The mechanics are unpacked in Chargebacks and EMI settlements: who can withhold, which is helpful for understanding why “the balance exists” doesn’t always translate into “the balance is releasable”.
Many senders will experience a rejection or return because the destination account is no longer open for receipt. Practically, the speed of the return depends on the rail and the sending bank’s handling, and that can create a gap between the sender sending money and it being back in their account.
This is why “remaining funds” sometimes includes “expected inbound money” that never truly becomes available post-closure. For Tide-specific handling patterns and what payers typically see, see Tide closed: incoming payments and returns.
In-flight payments can land in three broad outcomes: they complete, they reject, or they return. The key point is that a closure event can interrupt the normal path and change the outcome, especially if the provider stops processing new instructions at a particular cut-off point.
If the outgoing payment returns, the “remaining funds” may temporarily appear to increase after closure – but that doesn’t always mean immediate release, because providers may still need to reconcile the returned item and confirm where it should be sent. The Tide-specific scenarios are covered in Outgoing payments if closed mid-processing.
FSCS deposit protection applies to eligible deposits held with a UK-authorised bank, building society, or credit union. The FSCS confirms that, for firm failures from 1 December 2025, the deposit protection limit is £120,000 per eligible person per authorised firm, as set out on Deposit protection limit increase.
However, the FCA explains that for non-bank payment providers (such as EMIs), money is generally protected via safeguarding rather than FSCS – and it notes that if such a provider fails, it may take time to receive money back; see Using payment service providers.
This is why identifying whether a product is “bank deposit” or “e-money” can matter, which is covered in Safeguarding vs deposit cover.
Document requests are often about confirming identity, authority, and source/destination account ownership – especially where funds are being sent to a new bank account after access has ended.
Tide’s closure troubleshooting provides an example of this: it describes requesting a recent statement showing account details and identity to route a refund onward, on Managing your Tide account closure.
In review-led closures, evidence requests can be broader and may repeat over time due to periodic refresh and risk controls.
The typical categories and why they recur are outlined in Tide compliance review documents: what’s requested and why it repeats.
They can, depending on the contract terms and what fees are still due at the point of closure. Providers may apply fees, charge arrears, or make other deductions that were already contractually due, which can change the final returned amount compared with what the business expected.
In e-money-style account structures, this often shows up as “set-off” or deductions from stored balance, particularly where a plan fee or service charge falls due around closure. The mechanism and common misunderstandings are covered in Set-off and deductions in EMI accounts.
The biggest delays tend to come from situations where the provider can’t treat the balance as final:
- Open disputes/chargebacks
- In-flight payments
- Post-closure refunds
- Closure that follows a compliance review
In those cases, the timeline is often dominated by “case resolution” rather than bank-transfer speed.
A second “silent delay” driver is communication constraints in certain review contexts. Even when a firm is acting within internal processes, it may not be able to share detailed rationale in real time, which increases perceived uncertainty and slows coordination.
The practical implications of that constraint are explained in Why Tide can’t explain a restriction: tipping-off limits.
Account closure is often interpreted as a single event (“it’s closed”), but operationally it’s better understood as a state change: access ends, while residual payment events and liabilities can continue to arrive for a period. That mismatch drives most “where is my remaining balance?” confusion.
The other structural driver is that modern business account experiences can sit on top of different regulated models – deposit-taking bank accounts vs safeguarded e-money arrangements – and those models have different protections, different failure-handling paths, and different post-closure mechanics.
Regulators have been explicit that safeguarding aims to protect customer money at payment and e-money firms, and that reforms are intended to improve how quickly money can be returned in failure scenarios (see the FCA’s summary in FCA sets out changes to payment safeguarding rules and its policy detail in PS25/12).
Even outside insolvency, the same theme holds: “returning funds” is constrained by reconciliation, validation, and the need to avoid releasing money that may still be subject to legitimate downstream adjustments.
Sources & References
Related Content
