Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that HSBC failed to protect him from gambling-related harm after he lost approximately £12,000 through online gambling between mid-2023 and mid-2025. He argued that HSBC should have intervened based on clear indications of harmful gambling evident from his account activity, particularly as gambling merchants had restricted or closed his accounts and he had subsequently self-excluded via GamStop and entered a debt management plan. HSBC did not uphold the complaint, arguing that Mr R had not contacted the firm about financial difficulties or problem gambling despite receiving correspondence encouraging him to seek support. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, determining that HSBC was not aware of Mr R's problem gambling until he complained and that the account activity, which included legitimate day-to-day expenditure and transfers to another account alongside gambling payments, did not present a sufficiently clear pattern to alert the firm to harmful gambling earlier.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr R's gambling spend escalated in 2024 and 2025, the account activity did not present a clear pattern that should have alerted HSBC to problem gambling. The account was used for legitimate day-to-day expenditure and transfers to another account, not exclusively for gambling. Overdrafts were quickly corrected and often followed large transfers to another account rather than being solely caused by gambling payments. Mr R had long periods without gambling activity and had been gambling non-harmfully for years. Crucially, Mr R never proactively contacted HSBC about gambling concerns despite having contact with the firm, and he did not activate the gambling block even after HSBC mentioned it. The ombudsman concluded that HSBC first became aware of the problem when Mr R complained and that it would not be fair to hold HSBC liable for losses when the firm had no reasonable basis to identify the problem earlier.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website