Not upheld: scam/fraud - failure to prevent authorised push payment and failure to recover losses complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H lost £3,168.97 to a cryptocurrency mining investment scam via two Halifax credit card payments made in November-December 2021. He requested a credit limit increase days before the second payment, stating he would purchase computer hardware for mining. Mr H reported the scam to Halifax in September 2025, months after discovering the platform was fraudulent. Halifax declined to refund the losses, stating the authorised push payment reimbursement rules did not apply and no bank errors occurred. The ombudsman found Halifax was not required to prevent the payments as they were not suspicious enough to trigger intervention, and that neither chargeback nor section 75 recovery claims would have succeeded due to timing and evidentiary barriers.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Halifax was not required to intervene on the scam payments as they were not unusual or suspicious enough to trigger fraud detection. The first payment was very low value and the second, while higher, was not so extraordinary for a credit card purchase and was not identifiably linked to cryptocurrency. The credit limit increase call was a qualification call, not a fraud detection call, and Mr H's stated purpose of purchasing computer hardware for mining was reasonable. Regarding recovery, both chargeback and section 75 claims would have failed: the chargeback would likely have been out of time (beyond 120 days) and lacked evidence of misrepresentation or non-provision of services; the section 75 claim faced similar evidentiary barriers and an unclear debtor-creditor-supplier relationship. Halifax did not act unfairly in not pursuing recovery.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website