ING freezes accounts over missing payroll data without notice

ING froze a customer's accounts and cards over missing employment data without warning

Sunday, December 28, 7:32 AM. An email informs a two-decade-long customer that their ING operations are restricted due to incomplete personal data. No prior notice, no SMS, no call. The culprit: the number of payments. Monthly net income was filled in, but this specific field was empty. With accounts and cards blocked, the affected individual called. The representative asked them to stop shouting, couldn't explain why they were acting this way, and refused to transfer them to a supervisor. The money remained "theirs," they were told, even though they couldn't use it.

The hidden notice buried under seven submenus

The next day, the affected person corrects their account. Browsing the website, in the Help section under My transactions, a notice dated November 10 appears: "Verify your work activity." No email, no SMS, no deadline, no consequences, no indication of which document to upload among fifteen options. The notice had been there for weeks, in an area customers don't visit during normal operations.

The second call, now calm, ends the same way: the agent cannot escalate or resolve the case. But they reveal a telling detail: they have received many calls from customers with accounts blocked without notice that day. The affected person recorded the call. They filed a complaint with ING's Customer Ombudsman (Defensor del Cliente) and announced they would go to Banco de España if not unblocked. Their stance: no sending documentation until access is restored.

Is it legal to block an account without notifying the holder?

The obligation to keep client data updated stems from anti-money laundering regulations, which impose sanctions on entities that fail to comply. This explains why banks act urgently when they detect a gap. It does not, however, explain why the chosen method is cutting off access to accounts and cards without direct communication to the holder.

The most common argument against this practice is asymmetry: if the entity needs data by legal mandate, the same law requiring it should provide means to obtain it without leaving the client without liquidity. The usual response from entities—that the money still belongs to the client—clashes with the reality of direct debits continuing to arrive and bills that cannot be paid.

Unblocking arrives without explanation

On the afternoon of December 29, transfers start flowing again. No communication from ING, no response to the complaint. The hidden notice remains in place. On the 30th at 7:32 AM, another email announces a new block, although operations are working. A transfer ordered the previous night did not execute. Attempting to repeat it immediately reveals a €6,000 limit and a notification to confirm via an app the customer doesn't have.

That same day, at 3:34 PM, an email changes everything: "your ING accounts have been blocked by mistake." Apologies, confirmation promised for the next day, and thanks for patience. On the 31st at 7:27 AM, an SMS confirms the restriction has been removed. The affected person never sent the documentation. Nor did they receive an explanation of why the error targeted them and so many others who called that same day.

Complaint acknowledges lack of notice

Weeks later, the response from the Customer Ombudsman acknowledges there was no prior notice, apologizes, and forwards the need to correct this issue to the responsible department. It adds reminders about anti-money laundering laws and contract clauses obliging the client to provide required documentation. In essence: the entity admits the procedural failure while maintaining the underlying justification.

The case is not isolated. Other customers report blocks due to periodic transfers between own accounts, expired ID cards, or operations between Spanish entities that never leave the national circuit. The lingering feeling is of a system that treats the holder as a suspect by default and demands they prove innocence with paperwork, while communication with them is conspicuously absent.

What to do if the bank blocks your account without notice

The path several affected individuals describe as most effective is not phone calls, but written complaints. Formal claim to the entity's Customer Ombudsman, detailing facts, warning of escalation to Banco de España if no timely response, and reserving legal action rights. In reported cases, unblocking occurred the day after filing such a document.

The full calculation of what a block costs—returned bills, failed transfers, lost yield on deposits moved to current accounts to cover direct debits—has not been itemized by anyone. But the disorienting figure is another: the notice had been waiting since November 10 in a corner of the website, and no one bothered to send an email pointing it out.