Lloyds Bank Plc · DRN-6151554

The complaint Mr S complains that Lloyds Bank Plc sent him a letter which explained his behaviour during a branch visit was unacceptable. What happened On 15 August 2025, Mr S visited a Lloyds bank branch. He’s explained that it was an unpleasant visit as the branch was very busy and, in his opinion, understaffed. The queue of customers waiting for service was long and there was a large barking dog which made things worse. Mr S expressed concern about the service he received during the visit and said there were significant staffing issues before leaving. He’s acknowledged there were some heated words and said he was frustrated at the time. However, he was shocked and upset to receive a letter from Lloyds a few days later which explained his behaviour during the branch visit was deemed unacceptable. It also warned Mr S, that if further incidents occurred, they had the right to close his account. On receipt of this letter, Mr S called Lloyds to complain. He strongly refuted any suggestion that his behaviour was unacceptable, disrespectful or verbally abusive. He also gave his detailed version of events, which the adviser reassured him would be noted down. To resolve the complaint swiftly at this stage, the adviser paid Mr S £20 compensation into his account without completing an investigation. Mr S accepted this resolution, and said he was pleased to hear this incident wouldn’t be recorded on Lloyds’ system. Mr S also had a conversation with a second adviser, who took down all of the details again, said the matter would be investigated and agreed with Mr S, there was likely to have been an overreaction or misunderstanding. However, once again this adviser’s comments were just based on what Mr S told her. Mr S was later informed, his complaint had been formally re-opened, the branch notes had been reviewed and Lloyds weren’t retracting the warning or removing the notes of the incident from their records. Mr S then complained about the conflicting information, and said Lloyds had exacerbated the situation by all the phone calls. From his perspective, the matter had been quickly and fairly resolved during the first conversation, so he didn’t understand the change in outcome. He also decided to end his relationship with Lloyds by closing his account. To resolve the complaint, he said Lloyds should retract the warning, accept his behaviour wasn’t unacceptable, train their branch staff and remove all records of the incident from his account notes. An investigator at our service then considered the complaint and partially upheld it. He didn’t think Lloyds had done anything wrong by sending Mr S the warning letter or refusing to remove the details of this incident from their records. However, he did think Lloyds should pay Mr S £50 compensation to reflect the upset that was caused by the initial incorrect information that was given to him. Lloyds accepted the investigator’s opinion, but Mr S didn’t. In brief summary he said, Lloyds and our service should have reviewed the CCTV before reaching an outcome, and he shouldn’t be accused of unreasonable behaviour based on one person’s written testimony alone.

-- 1 of 3 --

He also said he believes Lloyds have breached several UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) principles by recording false information about this incident against his account. Lastly, he said, Lloyds need to review the way they train their staff to make sure, other customers don’t receive warning letters simply for highlighting poor customer service and staffing issues. So, I have considered the complaint afresh. 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 would like to reassure Mr S and Lloyds that although I have only summarised the background and arguments in the section above, I have read and considered everything provided about this complaint in its entirety. In reaching this decision, I mean no discourtesy by only focusing on the points I think are central to the outcome of the complaint. I’d firstly like to address Mr S’s comment about the lack of CCTV. Lloyds have explained the footage is only kept for a short amount of time, and its key purpose is to assist the police when there are reported incidents of criminal activity. So, it isn’t something that is typically used in connection to complaint handling. I don’t find this explanation unreasonable and note that the CCTV would only have been of limited value here in any event as it doesn’t include audio. As I’m sure both sides can appreciate, it’s very difficult to make a finding on something which happened in person, especially when each sides version of events significantly differs. In complaints of this nature, where the evidence is lacking, incomplete or contradictory, I’m therefore required to consider on balance, what I think is more likely to have happened based on all the circumstances. I appreciate from listening to Mr S’s calls with Lloyds that he didn’t feel his behaviour crossed a line, and he never intended on causing upset or verbal abuse to anyone. I also note that his manner during all of these calls was polite and respectful throughout. However, he’s acknowledged there were some heated words during the branch visit and he was frustrated by the poor service he received. Lloyds have explained they felt Mr S’s behaviour was unacceptable as he shouted at staff from across the branch and caused a disturbance. They have also explained to our service, that prior to sending Mr S the warning letter, the staff member’s version of events was carefully considered by the branch manager. This step forms part of Lloyds’ standard process for incidents of this nature, as sending a customer a warning letter is something they take extremely seriously. In light of this, I don’t think it’s likely this letter would have been dispatched to Mr S, if the branch staff didn’t genuinely feel it was appropriate. It’s important to note, that what counts as unreasonable behaviour is highly subjective. I have no reason to think Mr S deliberately intended to cause upset and it’s understandable he was frustrated by what he believed to be poor customer service. However, Lloyds also have an obligation to protect their staff and ensure they don’t feel uncomfortable or unsafe in their workplace. So, based on the circumstances, I don’t think they did anything wrong by writing to Mr S, and asking him to modify his behaviour going forward, due to the way this incident made their staff feel. As stated in the account terms and conditions, Lloyds have the right to close an account, if they are concerned about their customer’s behaviour. However, as this was a one-off event

-- 2 of 3 --

they decided not to do so here. I don’t think Lloyds did anything wrong by warning Mr S of this possibility in the letter, but it’s also clear, no further action would have been taken because of this incident alone had Mr S decided to continue the banking relationship. I’ve next considered the customer service Mr S received when he raised this issue. It’s understandable he was caused upset by the initial response. The first advisers empathised with Mr S and tried to resolve the complaint swiftly and informally. However, they didn’t fully investigate the matter and appeared to support Mr S’s position. One of the advisers also gave Mr S, incorrect information as they said no record would be kept of the incident and that wasn’t the case. Our investigator felt £50 compensation would be a fair amount to acknowledge this issue, and I agree having carefully considered the impact. Mr S feels Lloyds have breached GDPR by recording false details of this incident against his account. It’s not my place to decide if GDPR has been breached – Mr S would need to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he wants a ruling on this – but I have decided if Lloyds have acted fairly. Mr S hasn’t disputed Lloyds’ general right to hold information about him in connection to his account, so I’ve just focussed on his concern that some of the information is false. I can see the notes the branch staff member provided reflect their own personal version of events, and there are several telephone notes which detail Mr S’s differing response. So, if anyone were to review the account notes in the future, it would be clear this incident was highly disputed and the subject of a complaint. I’m also satisfied Lloyds haven’t done anything wrong by keeping a record of the warning that was provided as its clear such a letter was sent to Mr S. So, I don’t see any grounds for upholding this complaint point. Mr S has raised a concern that this issue could impact him in the future, but I don’t think this is likely to be the case. The warning has only been recorded on Lloyds’ internal system, and they have confirmed, it won’t impact him should he decide to apply for further accounts with Lloyds in the future. My final decision My final decision is I partially uphold this complaint and direct Lloyds Bank Plc to pay Mr S £50 compensation, if they haven’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Claire Greene Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --