Not upheld: failure to provide support to vulnerable customer with gambling problem; irresponsible lending complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (RBS)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that RBS failed to provide adequate support to prevent gambling transactions after he disclosed gambling problems in March 2020. Mr C identified three intervention points: March 2020 (initial disclosure), October 2020 (when gambling blocks became available), and December 2020 (when he spent over £1,000 gambling in one day). The ombudsman reviewed the period March 2020 to April 2022 and found that RBS had no reasonable basis to intervene at any point. The March 2020 call note indicated gambling was a previous issue with help received, and Mr C was already aware of external support such as GAMSTOP. At subsequent points, Mr C's account appeared to be managed within limits with no clear indicators of distress. The ombudsman concluded RBS had not acted unfairly and was not obliged to monitor the account as closely as Mr C believed, and upheld RBS's position that they had done nothing wrong.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a balance of probabilities test given incomplete evidence (call recording unavailable). The key finding was that RBS had no reasonable basis to intervene at any of the three suggested intervention points: (1) March 2020 - the note indicated gambling was a previous issue with help received, Mr C was managing his account after the overdraft was cleared, and he was already aware of external support; (2) October 2020 - Mr C's statements showed little gambling and no overdraft for months, appearing to manage his account; (3) December 2020 - the £1,000 spend was large but Mr C remained within limits and authorised the transactions. The ombudsman noted there is no requirement for RBS to monitor accounts as closely as Mr C believed, and even if RBS had intervened, it would likely not have changed the outcome given the limitations of gambling blocks and Mr C's existing awareness of support.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website