Upheld: failure to intervene on gambling activity and refusal to refund gambling expenditure complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (NatWest)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6228889 of 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. failure to intervene on gambling activity and refusal to refund gambling expenditure complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (NatWest). Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6228889 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (NatWest) |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | failure to intervene on gambling activity and refusal to refund gambling expenditure |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | NatWest directed to pay Miss R £200 compensation |
Summary
Miss R complained that NatWest failed to refund approximately £37,000 she spent on gambling over one year, during which she lost £19,000. She contacted the bank in January 2026 regarding her gambling expenditure and requested a chargeback. The bank rejected her complaint, explaining that chargebacks do not apply to gambling transactions and she had authorised all payments. The ombudsman found no legal route for recovery (chargebacks and section 75 Consumer Credit Act do not apply to gambling) and therefore upheld the bank's position on refunds. However, the ombudsman found the bank missed an opportunity to intervene when it queried two £20 bookmaker transactions in January 2026 and identified them as gambling-related, but failed to review Miss R's broader transaction patterns showing significant gambling activity. The ombudsman awarded £200 compensation for this missed intervention opportunity, though noted there was no guarantee intervention would have changed Miss R's behaviour.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While the ombudsman acknowledged Miss R's significant gambling problem and sympathised with her situation, there was no legal route for the bank to recover gambling expenditure. Chargebacks do not apply to gambling transactions under scheme operator rules, and section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 did not apply as there was no debtor-creditor relationship. The ombudsman found that banks are not required to monitor spending patterns and most do not have mechanisms to spot gambling activity beyond merchant codes. Although the bank missed one opportunity to intervene in January 2026 when it queried the bookmaker transactions, there was no guarantee intervention would have changed Miss R's behaviour. Critically, Miss R's account showed no signs of financial difficulty (remained in credit, no overdraft, no missed payments), which would typically trigger bank intervention. The ombudsman concluded the bank was not wholly responsible for Miss R's financial difficulties but awarded £200 compensation for the missed intervention opportunity.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (NatWest), all decisions | 112 | 8% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website