Detailed recommendation · Case #NL-2026-0041

Summary

Based on the submitted terms, transaction records, and correspondence, the platform's restriction of the claimant's account appears inconsistent with the business's stated policy. The AI recommends a settlement of £340 in favour of the claimant, together with reinstatement of the account within 7 calendar days.

Facts considered

• · Claimant opened the account on 3 June 2025 and completed 42 transactions.
• · Account restricted on 14 October 2025 following an automated risk flag.
• · Business terms of service (v4.2) require written notice before restriction.
• · No written notice was issued; claimant contacted support 6 times over 3 weeks.
• · Balance withheld: £340. No transactional evidence of policy breach.

Reasoning

1. 1. Contractual obligation. Clause 8.3 of the business's own terms requires 14 days' written notice before restricting an account. This step was not taken.
2. 2. Statutory basis. Under the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, service must be provided with reasonable care and skill. Restricting funds without notice or explanation falls short of this standard.
3. 3. Comparable outcomes. Three precedent cases on the platform with materially similar facts resulted in refunds ranging from £280 to £410.
4. 4. Proportionality. The recommended figure reflects the withheld balance in full; no additional damages are recommended given the absence of documented consequential loss.

Sources

• Business terms of service (v4.2)
• 14 emails and transaction logs reviewed
• UK Consumer Rights Act 2015
• 3 comparable precedent cases

Your options

Both parties choose independently. If both accept, the recommendation becomes a binding award. If either party requests arbitration, the case advances to Stage 2 with a qualified human arbitrator.

This is an illustrative example. Real cases require a signed account and verified identity before any binding decision is recorded.