header-logo header-logo

Debanking: balancing transparency & compliance

223033
David Hamilton on how the UK’s new debanking rules reshape financial services risk management
  • This article considers the intentions and implications of the Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
  • There are two principal changes to the existing Payment Services Regulations framework: the notice period payment firms must give customers prior to terminating services, and the explanations payment firms must give customers for their decisions to terminate services.
  • The compliance requirements on payment firms include customer onboarding and risk assessments, maintaining detailed records and training provisions.

On 28 April 2025, the UK government introduced a draft statutory instrument titled the Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (the amended PSPA Regulations). Despite the prosaic title, the amended PSPA Regulations (if passed) have potentially significant implications for how firms terminate the provision of payment services, commonly referred to as ‘debanking’.

Since Nigel Farage’s public spat with Coutts Bank in 2023, the issue of debanking has drawn sustained public, political and regulatory scrutiny, becoming emblematic

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll