Partially upheld: fraud recovery and service failure complaint against Lloyds Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5886718 of 2026-04-09T00:00:00+00:00. fraud recovery and service failure complaint against Lloyds Bank Plc. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5886718 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lloyds Bank Plc |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | fraud recovery and service failure |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Lloyds Bank Plc must pay D £160 in total compensation (£80 for initial service failure plus additional £80 for inconvenience caused by poor handling of the fraud claim). |
Summary
D, a limited company, was victim of an email intercept scam resulting in a £3,340 loss in December 2024. Lloyds failed to properly log the fraud report, requiring D to report the fraud twice and causing delays in contacting the receiving firm. While this delay meant £437 in recoverable funds were lost, the receiving firm later recovered and returned £643.16 to D in March 2025, exceeding the preventable loss. The ombudsman found no financial loss requiring reimbursement but upheld the complaint regarding poor service, awarding £160 total compensation for inconvenience and service failures.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Lloyds' delay in logging the fraud claim properly meant that £437 in recoverable funds were lost, D ultimately received £643.16 from the receiving firm, which exceeds the amount that could have been prevented from being lost. Therefore, no financial loss resulted from Lloyds' error. However, Lloyds' poor service in handling the claim—including incorrect logging, requiring D to report twice, and failing to inform D of the recovery—caused inconvenience beyond what could reasonably be expected of fraud victims. Compensation for this service failure is appropriate.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lloyds Bank Plc, all decisions | 19,796 | 16% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website