By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 27/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
If your Tide account is “under review”, it usually means Tide is running a risk, compliance, or eligibility check and may temporarily limit some features (sometimes including pausing the account) while it requests information.
Tide’s own Help Centre describes routine reviews as checking account activity, how the business makes money, industry eligibility, and whether account-holder or business details have changed, and notes that accounts may be paused depending on complexity (routine reviews).
The most common outcomes are:
- The account continues as normal once information is reviewed
- The account continues but with limits or changes
- The account is closed (either with notice or, in some situations, immediately).
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What “under review” usually means on a Tide account
“Under review” is a broad label. In practice, it often covers one of three situations:
A routine or periodic check (sometimes called a “security review”) where Tide requests updated information or documents (routine reviews).
A triggered review where activity or profile data creates a need for extra verification (for example, a change in directors/PSCs, a new payment pattern, or cross-border activity).
A pre-decision stage before restriction or closure, where Tide assesses whether the account can continue under its terms and regulatory obligations (see the general decision mechanics in restriction vs closure).
In Tide’s terms, Tide may restrict or suspend features while concerns are resolved, and it also sets out circumstances where it may terminate immediately (see “Termination” in Tide’s terms).
The common stages of a Tide review (what tends to happen first, next, and last)
Tide’s described flow in the Help Centre is broadly:
Message in-app explaining more information is needed
Request for information/documents
Possible pause during the review (depending on the issue and complexity)
Assessment of what you provide (Tide states this part may take up to 20 days)
Limited/no updates during the assessment (Tide says it cannot provide updates for legal reasons)
Outcome communicated: continue the account or, in some cases, close it
(These steps are summarised on Tide’s routine reviews page.)
In practice, many reviews also include a “hidden” stage: internal escalation (for example, enhanced checks, manual review, or specialist sign-off). That escalation is one reason timeframes vary so widely across cases.
For the underlying “why”, the industry-wide mechanics are covered in bank compliance reviews explained.
The “immediate closure” reality check (0 days’ notice can happen)
A frequent misunderstanding is assuming closure always comes with notice. Tide’s terms say it may terminate by giving at least two months’ notice, but it also lists situations where it may terminate “on immediate notice”, including where it reasonably thinks the customer might put Tide in breach of law or regulation (Tide’s terms).
That matters because reviews connected to suspected financial crime, fraud risk, or legal/regulatory constraints can move straight from “under review” to locked features and closure with no notice. Even when the account holder believes there is a simple explanation, the operational reality can be immediate restrictions while checks run.
This links to another practical point: firms may be limited in what they can say while reviewing, which is why messages can feel vague. One legal reference point often cited in this area is the “tipping off” offence in the regulated sector (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.333A). For the plain-English “why it can’t be explained” angle, see why banks can’t explain restrictions.
Bounce Back Loan (BBL) legacy checks
If your business received a Bounce Back Loan (especially if it was issued through Tide), legacy checks can still surface years later as “account under review”.
Why this is plausible (in neutral, verifiable terms):
Tide states it participated in BBLS and “only made c.1,800 loans” (Tide’s BBLS insights post).
BBLS had (and remains associated with) significant counter-fraud and assurance activity. The Public Accounts Committee describes the British Business Bank running a lender assurance programme and refers to lender audits in the scheme context (PAC follow-up report).
The scheme’s operational documentation and lifecycle controls are captured in British Business Bank materials such as the BBLS lender manual (BBLS Term Loan Lender Manual), and the NAO investigated the scheme’s fraud and control trade-offs (NAO investigation report).
A practical implication: if BBLS funds moved in a way that later looks inconsistent with scheme conditions, it can prompt questions. The government’s BBLS factsheet states the loan could not be used for personal purposes (and gives examples of permitted business uses) (BBLS factsheet).
In a review, that often translates into requests to explain where funds went and what they related to (for the “what documents get asked for” pattern, see bank review evidence packs).
This isn’t a statement that every Tide review is BBLS-related. It’s a high-signal scenario that explains why some long-dormant accounts suddenly face detailed questions.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Routine review message arrives via app (routine reviews) | Documents/information requested | Some features may continue; time to gather evidence can become the main bottleneck |
| Account is “paused” during review | Temporary restriction of activity (scope varies) | Payroll, supplier payments, and scheduled payments may be disrupted (see payroll during restriction/closure) |
| Outgoing payments are paused | Outgoing transfers blocked; other features may still work depending on setup | Immediate operational impact on suppliers/tax; similar mechanics are discussed in outgoing payments paused |
| Review clears | Account continues | Restrictions lifted; monitoring may continue in background |
| Review escalates to closure with notice | Account continues for a period, then closes | Wind-down tasks: move funds, migrate direct debits, manage in-flight transfers (see outgoing payments mid-processing) |
| Review escalates to immediate termination (0 days) | Account access can be restricted and closure actioned immediately | No “waiting period” if legal/regulatory risk is identified (see “immediate notice” in Tide’s terms) |
| Historic BBLS (Bounce Back Loan) questions surface | Deep evidence request about eligibility/use of funds | Lender assurance/audit programmes exist in the scheme context (PAC follow-up); personal use was prohibited (BBLS factsheet) |
Scenario Table
| Stage-level | Process-level | Outcome-level |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Routine monitoring, risk flags, or profile change (e.g., PSC/director update) | Review opened; messaging may be minimal (see PSC changes) |
| Initial controls | Feature limits may be applied while checks run | Reduced payment capability; operational disruption risk rises |
| Information capture | Requests for documents, explanations, transaction detail | “Evidence pack” style responses become necessary (see evidence packs) |
| Enhanced checks | Manual review / escalations / enhanced due diligence | Timelines become variable (see EDD triggers & outcomes) |
| Decision | Continue / restrict / exit (close) | If exiting, the closure pathway starts (see restriction vs closure) |
| Resolution | Reinstatement steps or wind-down steps | If reinstated: see account reinstatement stages. If closed: see balance return timelines |
What timelines are realistic (and why there isn’t a single “standard”)
Tide states that reviewing the information you provide may take up to 20 days (routine reviews). That is not a guarantee that every case will be resolved inside that window, and it does not necessarily include time spent waiting for requested documents, internal escalation, or third-party checks.
The key driver in most reviews is complexity: a straightforward eligibility update is not operationally the same as a review involving cross-border payments (see international payments under review) or enhanced checks.
What Tide (and similar providers) commonly ask for
The most common “buckets” align with what banks and payment firms request in ongoing monitoring:
Business identity and control: owners, directors, PSC structure changes (see PSC re-verification).
Business model clarity: how revenue is generated, counterparties, contracts/invoices.
Source and purpose of funds: explanations for larger or unusual inflows/outflows.
Operational evidence: payroll records, supplier invoices, tax-related context (see payroll during restriction/closure).
For a more detailed view of what tends to appear in “evidence pack” requests, use bank review evidence packs.
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide is a well-known app-based business account provider, but the underlying account type matters (bank vs e-money).
The practical consequences of a review can differ depending on which product you hold and which entity provides the underlying rails (see app business accounts: bank or e-money and Tide’s FCA authorisation information in Tide’s terms). The FCA’s public register is the primary place to confirm regulatory status (FCA Financial Services Register).
For a broader product-level view (fees, features, trade-offs), see our Tide business account review.
Frequently Asked Questions
The clearest signal is usually an in-app message requesting information or documents. Tide’s Help Centre describes the process as starting with a message in the app and then asking for information and documents if needed (routine reviews).
A second signal is functionality changes: payment features may become limited, or the account may be paused during the review. Importantly, “under review” can exist even when the app language is brief, because the operational work happens behind the scenes and updates may be limited for legal reasons (routine reviews; background on constraints in why banks can’t explain restrictions).
“Paused” typically means Tide has temporarily restricted the account while a review is ongoing. Tide explicitly notes that it may pause an account during the review depending on the issue and its complexity (routine reviews).
The practical impact depends on what is paused: some cases look like a broad stop on outgoing activity; others may be narrower. Where the account is central to payroll and supplier payments, the business impact can be immediate (see operational considerations in payroll when restricted/closing).
It can happen that a provider restricts some payment paths and not others, depending on what the review is targeting and how controls are implemented. Tide has also published guidance around situations where payments are paused and what that means operationally (payments paused explainer).
When outgoing payments are limited but incoming funds still arrive, it can create a “cash trapped” feeling: revenue continues, but the ability to pay suppliers or tax is constrained. In wider banking/EMI contexts, this is one reason businesses separate settlement chains and bank rails (see the payment-chain explanation in merchant account vs EMI balance vs bank balance).
Tide states that reviewing the information you provide may take up to 20 days (routine reviews). That is a stated upper bound for that step, not a promise that every case will resolve inside that timeframe.
The “real” elapsed time often depends on (a) how quickly requested material is provided, and (b) whether the case escalates into enhanced checks. Enhanced checks can introduce third-party verification steps and longer manual review cycles (see how enhanced checks change outcomes in EDD triggers & outcomes).
Tide says it cannot provide updates for legal reasons while reviewing the information you provide (routine reviews). Even when it feels counterintuitive, limited disclosure can be a feature of the regulated environment rather than a customer-service choice.
A common legal reference point in this area is the regulated-sector “tipping off” offence, which is designed to prevent disclosures that could prejudice an investigation (POCA 2002, s.333A). In practical terms, that can translate into vague messaging and a focus on “please provide X documents” rather than “here is exactly what we suspect” (see why banks can’t explain restrictions).
The request typically aims to confirm identity, control, and the economic purpose of activity. That often means corporate documents (or confirmations of directors/PSCs), plus trading evidence (invoices/contracts) and an explanation of key transactions.
A useful way to think about it is “evidence pack logic”: the reviewer is trying to reconcile what the account is doing with what the business says it does. The most common categories are mapped in bank review evidence packs and recurring refresh patterns are covered in periodic KYC rechecks.
Yes, that is possible. Tide’s terms include a two-month notice pathway for termination, but also allow termination on immediate notice in listed circumstances, including where Tide reasonably thinks the customer might put it in breach of law or regulation (Tide’s terms).
This is why “I was told closures have 60 days” can be misleading in higher-risk scenarios. Where legal/regulatory risk is identified, operational controls and closure can be immediate, and the explanation may remain limited while the situation is assessed (see the constraints discussed in why banks can’t explain restrictions).
It can. Tide confirms it participated in BBLS and references its own BBLS lending volumes (Tide BBLS insights). Separately, public-sector scrutiny of BBLS included lender assurance and audit activity; the Public Accounts Committee describes the British Business Bank running a lender assurance programme and refers to lender audits (PAC follow-up report).
Where BBLS is part of the picture, reviews often focus on eligibility consistency and the movement/use of funds. The government factsheet states the BBLS loan could not be used for personal purposes (BBLS factsheet). In a modern review, that can translate into requests to explain transfers and provide business-purpose documentation (see the documentation pattern in evidence packs).
The effect depends on what is restricted. Some reviews mainly block outgoing payments; others block broader functionality. Where card settlements are involved, there may also be separate holds upstream of the account itself (for example, payment processor reserves), which can compound disruption (see restriction triggers and processor holds).
Direct debits and in-flight payments have their own mechanics and timing. If the review progresses into closure, the question becomes what happens to transactions already mid-processing (see outgoing payments mid-processing).
The closure pathway is usually a combination of:
- Stopping certain services
- Completing any required steps to wind down
- Returning remaining funds according to the account’s terms and operational constraints.
Tide’s own Help Centre outlines practical wind-down steps such as moving funds out, cancelling scheduled payments, and downloading statements (routine reviews).
The timing of balance return varies across providers and scenarios, particularly where restrictions are tied to compliance checks. For the broader UK pattern and realistic timing expectations, see how long banks return the remaining balance.
If the product is e-money rather than a deposit account, it’s also important to understand the difference between safeguarding and FSCS deposit cover (see safeguarding vs deposit cover and the FSCS overview of what FSCS covers).
An “account under review” is best understood as a risk-control state, not a customer-service state. Payment firms and banks sit inside regulated payment networks; when something does not match the expected profile (or when an external obligation is triggered), the organisation’s priority becomes network integrity and legal compliance, not speed of explanation. That is why the process often looks like: restrict first, ask questions second, explain last (or sometimes not at all).
Two features amplify the frustration. First, the review is often evidence-driven: the fastest path to resolution is usually determined by whether the requested information closes the specific gaps the reviewer is trying to reconcile (see evidence pack patterns). Second, disclosure constraints are real: even when a business owner is confident the activity is legitimate, firms may limit what they say while checks run, with “tipping off” risk frequently cited in the regulated sector (POCA 2002, s.333A).
Sources & References
Tide Help Centre: Our routine security reviews
Tide blog: Payments paused – what it means
Tide terms: Tide Terms of Use (PDF)
UK Government: Bounce Back Loan Scheme factsheet
Tide blog: Bounce Back Loans: Some Insights
British Business Bank: BBLS Term Loan Lender Manual (PDF)
National Audit Office: Investigation into the Bounce Back Loan Scheme (PDF)
Public Accounts Committee: Bounce Back Loans Scheme: Follow-up (PDF)
UK legislation: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 – section 333A
Financial Ombudsman Service (example decision format): DRN-4567472 (PDF)
FSCS: What FSCS covers
Related Content
