Not upheld: fraud and scam protection; failure to intervene on suspicious transactions complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S fell victim to a sophisticated job scam in December 2025, making 14 payments totalling £5,283 to crypto exchanges after being recruited for a fake commission-based job. Halifax refunded 50% of payments 10-14 (£2,251.50) after acknowledging they should have intervened at payment 10, but Mr S sought full refund of payments 6-14 and higher compensation. The ombudsman found Halifax's intervention point at payment 10 was correct, as earlier payments were too small and the pattern had not yet become sufficiently suspicious. However, the ombudsman upheld the 50% deduction based on contributory negligence, finding Mr S should have questioned the legitimacy of a job requiring cryptocurrency payments with no interview or formal contract. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Halifax should have intervened at payment 10 due to the pattern of escalating same-day payments to new crypto exchange payees, intervention was not required earlier because: crypto payments are common and legal; payments 1-9 were small amounts Mr S had previously made larger payments; and the pattern had not yet become sufficiently suspicious. However, the ombudsman applied contributory negligence principles, finding Mr S should have questioned the legitimacy of a job requiring cryptocurrency payments, offering high salary for low hours, with no interview or contract. Therefore, a 50% deduction was fair as both parties made errors. The ombudsman rejected the argument that intervention would necessarily have prevented the scam, noting the coaching Mr S received, but found it more likely than not that a human intervention bringing job scams to life would have unravelled it.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website