Not upheld: fraud and scams protection / failure to protect against potential duress or undue influence complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

The executor of Mrs P's estate complained that Halifax failed to protect her account by allowing a £69,000 payment to a family member in October 2023, alleging Mrs P was forced to make the payment and that Halifax did not conduct sufficient due diligence. Halifax maintained it had completed appropriate checks and refused to refund the payment. The ombudsman found that Halifax followed standard procedures for high-value branch transactions, including obtaining Mrs P's signature, checking identification, and completing a high-value checklist with trained staff and the branch manager. Although Mrs P had physical vulnerabilities, there was no recorded evidence of suspicious behaviour or coercion on the day, and the ombudsman was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Halifax should have refused the payment or conducted additional questioning. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Service Regulations 2017, which establish that customers are generally liable for authorized payments unless the bank should have identified fraud or scam risk and failed to protect them. While the £69,000 payment was large and unusual, the ombudsman found on the balance of probabilities that Halifax followed its standard process for high-value branch payments. The branch manager processed the payment, Mrs P signed for it, identification was checked, and a high-value checklist was completed. The ombudsman was not persuaded that the absence of additional questioning or taking Mrs P aside separately constituted a breach of duty, particularly given no suspicious behaviour was recorded and the standard leaflet distribution did not indicate branch suspicion. The ombudsman acknowledged incomplete evidence but found insufficient grounds to show Halifax should have refused the payment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website