HM Treasury has opened a call for evidence for the independent Access to Banking Services Review, which will examine whether declining access to in-person banking services in the UK is causing consumer detriment and how material that detriment is, including for specific customer groups. The review, chaired by Richard Lloyd, covers both retail customers and organisations such as small businesses, non-profit and community groups, and will inform recommendations to government on whether further action is needed. The exercise seeks evidence from financial institutions, consumers, consumer groups, local authorities, small and medium-sized enterprises and trade bodies across the UK. It asks for quantitative and qualitative evidence and case studies on which in-person services remain essential, which groups require them, the scale and distribution of any harm from reduced access, trends in branch closures and service reductions, the effectiveness of existing mitigations such as banking hubs, Post Office branches and mobile branches, and the likely future trajectory of provision. Cash withdrawal and deposit services are outside scope because access to cash is already protected by legislation and overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority. The call for evidence closes on 20 July. During the exercise, the Chair will meet industry, charities and consumers to gather further evidence, and the review team will then analyse responses before submitting a report and recommendations to the government in October 2026.
HM Treasury2026-06-08
HM Treasury launches call for evidence for review of access to in-person banking services with responses due by 20 July
HM Treasury has launched a call for evidence for the independent Access to Banking Services Review, assessing whether declining in-person banking access in the UK is causing consumer detriment, including for specific customer groups. Chaired by Richard Lloyd, the review covers retail customers and organisations such as small businesses and community groups, and will examine essential in-person services, the scale and distribution of harm, trends in branch closures, and the effectiveness of mitigations such as banking hubs and Post Office branches, excluding cash withdrawal and deposit services already protected by legislation.