Not upheld: failure to identify gambling-related harm and intervene complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Starling Bank failed to identify his gambling addiction and intervene, resulting in losses of over £20,000 between September and December 2025 through overseas online gambling websites. Starling argued it had no indication of gambling problems before Mr C disclosed them in December 2025. The ombudsman found that the gambling payments used merchant codes not identified as gambling, there were no financial distress indicators such as missed payments or overdraft exceedances, and no fraudulent flags were triggered. The ombudsman concluded that Starling could not reasonably have been expected to identify the problem from account activity alone, and that even earlier intervention would not likely have prevented Mr C's losses given his awareness of the gambling block's limitations. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman considered whether Starling should have identified gambling problems from account activity alone. While acknowledging Mr C's mental health issues and gambling addiction, the ombudsman found that: (1) gambling itself does not automatically classify someone as vulnerable; (2) without customer disclosure, Starling would need automated alerts triggered by account activity; (3) the account showed no clear indicators such as overdraft exceedance, missed payments, or flagged fraudulent transactions; (4) the gambling payments used non-gambling merchant codes; (5) even if Starling had intervened earlier, any intervention would have been in the form of a letter or alert requiring Mr C's consent and action; (6) Mr C was aware the gambling block had limitations and that the websites he used were not blocked by it; and (7) therefore, earlier intervention would not likely have prevented his gambling losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website