Not upheld: failure to identify vulnerability and intervene on gambling-related harm; irresponsible lending/account management complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that Halifax failed to recognize he was struggling with compulsive gambling and did not intervene or offer support, despite losing over £15,000 through gambling transactions on his current account. Mr W argued the pattern of frantic gambling payments, returned direct debits, and immediate salary depletion should have alerted Halifax to his vulnerability. Halifax responded that it had received no notification of compulsive gambling before February 2025 and could only act once informed, at which point it immediately applied a gambling block. The ombudsman upheld Halifax's position, finding that banks are not required to manually monitor accounts for gambling patterns, the transaction history did not demonstrate clear financial difficulty (as Mr W maintained a positive balance and promptly covered returned direct debits), and it is reasonable to expect customers to proactively disclose compulsive gambling issues to their bank.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the principle that banks are required to make authorized payments and do not routinely manually monitor accounts. The key finding was that Halifax could only reasonably be expected to intervene if it suspected fraud or if Mr W had demonstrated clear financial difficulty. Although direct debits were returned, Mr W promptly deposited funds to cover them and maintained a positive balance, which did not constitute sufficient evidence of financial struggle. Critically, Mr W did not notify Halifax of his compulsive gambling until February 2025, and it is reasonable to expect customers to proactively disclose such issues. Once notified, Halifax acted promptly by applying a gambling block and signposting support organizations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website