Not upheld: investment scam - refund claim / fraud prevention complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M lost £191,100 to an investment scam between July and August 2025, making 35 payments from his Santander account to an account he held at an EMI that scammers helped him set up. Santander blocked various payments and conducted five phone interventions during which they provided scam warnings and asked about the purpose of payments. Mr M provided false explanations (currency travel account, property renovations, cashback offer) and did not disclose that a scammer was guiding him. The Ombudsman found Santander's interventions were proportionate and reasonable, and that Mr M's failure to disclose the third-party involvement prevented the bank from uncovering the scam. Since Mr M was heavily influenced by the scammer and unlikely to have disclosed the fraud even with further probing, additional intervention would not have prevented the loss. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under Payment Services Regulations 2017, consumers are generally liable for authorised payments. Banks must balance fraud prevention with minimising disruption to legitimate payments. Santander took proportionate steps by monitoring the account, implementing systems to detect unusual transactions, and conducting five phone interventions with scam warnings. The critical issue is causation: whether further intervention would have prevented the loss. Mr M provided false information during calls and failed to disclose the scammer's involvement, which prevented Santander from knowing the true circumstances. Even if Santander had probed further, Mr M was heavily influenced by the scammer and unlikely to have disclosed the fraud. The information Mr M provided (property renovations abroad, frequent travel, loans for home improvements) sounded plausible and did not indicate vulnerability to a complex multi-stage scam. Therefore, Santander acted fairly and reasonably, and the failure to prevent the payments was not causally linked to any breach of duty.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website