Not upheld: inadequate fraud protection and scam prevention complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S fell victim to an investment scam and made 26 payments totalling approximately £76,626 from her BOS account between June and September 2024 to cryptocurrency platforms and international accounts. BOS partially upheld her complaint and refunded 50% of payments from payment 16 onwards, plus £50 compensation. Ms S sought full refund of all payments plus interest and additional compensation. The ombudsman found that while BOS should have intervened with human contact at payment 16 due to its significantly unusual amount (£8,366.70), earlier interventions would likely not have prevented the scam given Ms S's susceptibility to scammer manipulation and her misleading responses when BOS did intervene at payment 8. The ombudsman upheld BOS's decision to allocate liability 50/50 from payment 16, considering Ms S's failure to conduct independent research and her acceptance of instructions to deceive her bank.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Service Regulations 2017 starting position that Ms S was liable for authorised payments, but considered whether BOS should have intervened based on unusual transaction patterns. While payments 1-3 were higher than Ms S's usual spending, they were not individually concerning. Payment 4, made immediately after payment 3 with a combined daily total of £3,700, should have triggered a tailored automated warning. However, the ombudsman was not persuaded this would have prevented further payments given Ms S's susceptibility to scammer advice and her responses during the intervention call at payment 8. Payment 16 at £8,366.70 was significantly out of character and should have triggered human intervention, which the ombudsman found BOS should have conducted. The ombudsman considered that Ms S bore some responsibility for not conducting her own research into the investment and for accepting instructions to provide misleading information to her bank. Therefore, the 50% refund from payment 16 was found to be a fair allocation of liability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website