Not upheld: scam prevention - inadequate intervention complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Lloyds Bank failed to prevent him falling victim to an investment scam by not intervening before he made multiple payments to Coinbase and Revolut. The ombudsman found that while Lloyds should have taken further action before processing a £4,000 payment to Coinbase (the eighth transaction connected to the scam), a reasonable intervention would have been targeted written questions rather than human-led contact. However, the complaint was not upheld because the ombudsman concluded that Mr G would not likely have responded differently to such an intervention, based on his inaccurate responses to similar scam-risk questions posed by Revolut, where he mischaracterized investment payments as bank transfers despite being given clear options to identify them correctly. The ombudsman found that Mr G's apparent confidence in the investment opportunity at the time meant he would not have been deterred by further warnings from Lloyds.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman accepted that Mr G authorised the payments and that while Lloyds should have intervened before the £4,000 payment, a targeted written intervention (rather than human-led) would have been reasonable and proportionate. However, the key finding was that such an intervention would not likely have prevented the loss. The ombudsman relied heavily on Mr G's responses to Revolut's interventions, where he inaccurately described investment payments as transfers to a bank account despite being given clear options to identify them as investment-related. The ombudsman concluded that Mr G's inaccurate responses to Revolut, combined with his apparent confidence in the investment opportunity at the time, meant he would likely have responded similarly to Lloyds and would not have been deterred by warnings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website