Not upheld: failure to protect vulnerable customer from gambling losses; inadequate duty of care complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Halifax failed in its duty of care as a vulnerable customer by not preventing his gambling losses despite knowing of his gambling addiction since July 2023. Mr L sought refunds of all gambling losses and claimed Halifax should have done more to protect him, including proactively monitoring his account and contacting him about expiring gambling prevention registrations. Halifax provided a gambling freeze tool that worked when activated, but Mr L repeatedly disabled it to make gambling transactions, including via faster payments which the freeze could not block. The ombudsman found Halifax acted reasonably, as it provided appropriate tools and information, Mr L was aware of their limitations, and banks cannot unilaterally block authorised transactions or monitor accounts for gambling activity.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Halifax provided appropriate tools and information to Mr L regarding gambling prevention, including the gambling freeze which functioned correctly when activated. The ombudsman accepted that banks cannot unilaterally block authorised transactions customers wish to make, and that Mr L was aware of the limitations of the freeze and how to circumvent it. The ombudsman concluded Halifax had no obligation to monitor Mr L's account for gambling activity or to proactively contact him about expiring gambling prevention registrations, as these are customer-managed voluntary controls and external services respectively.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website