Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against HSBC UK Bank PLC (trading as first direct)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained that first direct refused to refund gambling transactions made despite a gambling block being in place, arguing the bank should have done more given his previously disclosed gambling vulnerability. The transactions were not identified as gambling because the merchants used non-gambling merchant category codes, which are controlled by merchants rather than banks. Although first direct had responded to Mr F's vulnerability disclosure by offering support options including read-only access and card restrictions, Mr F declined these during a call on 12 November 2025. The ombudsman found that the account showed no signs of financial stress, the payments were affordable, and first direct had no reasonable basis to intervene, concluding the bank acted appropriately and the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that gambling blocks rely on merchant categorisation which is controlled by merchants and card schemes, not banks, so the block's failure to prevent these transactions was not an error by first direct. The ombudsman determined that banks are expected to monitor for fraud or serious financial difficulty but are not required to intervene in every transaction in real time, and that Mr F's account showed no signs of financial stress as he was transferring cash in and payments were within affordable ranges. The ombudsman recognised that first direct did respond appropriately to the disclosed vulnerability by offering support and options, which Mr F declined. The ombudsman concluded that Mr F's expectations go beyond what banks are required to do.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website