Not upheld: gambling block failure and failure to support vulnerable customer complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B, who has a gambling addiction, enabled a gambling block on her Halifax account on 30 September 2025 but continued to make gambling transactions to a merchant not registered as a gambling business. She complained to Halifax on 3 January 2026 requesting a refund of £510 in pending payments, arguing Halifax failed to support her as a vulnerable customer. Halifax declined, explaining that gambling blocks only block transactions to merchants identified with gambling merchant category codes, and the merchant in question was not so classified. The ombudsman found the gambling block worked as intended, Halifax provided clear information about its limitations, and there were no clear signs in Miss B's account activity requiring intervention, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that gambling blocks have inherent limitations as they rely on merchant-assigned category codes, and merchants not identifying themselves as gambling businesses means transactions will not be blocked. Halifax provided clear information about these limitations within its app. While banks should offer support where they become aware of problems, gambling is lawful and banks are not generally required to monitor authorised transactions or intervene based on spending patterns alone. Miss B's account activity did not show clear signs requiring intervention, and when she contacted Halifax, it responded appropriately by explaining the block's limitations, declining the refund for authorised payments, and providing external support information.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website