Not upheld: gambling block functionality clarity and irresponsible lending complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Miss W complained that Lloyds Bank failed to make clear which transactions would not be blocked after she activated a gambling block on her app, resulting in approximately £8,200 in losses to gambling merchants via faster payments. She also raised concerns about irresponsible lending regarding her initial £500 overdraft facility granted in June 2024. The ombudsman found that Lloyds Bank's lending decision was fair and proportionate based on validated income of £2,900 monthly and calculated disposable income of £1,411. The ombudsman also determined that the app clearly indicated the gambling freeze was a card freeze tool and referenced FAQs for further details, making it reasonable to expect the customer to seek additional information. The complaint was not upheld, though Lloyds Bank had already provided redress for the irresponsible lending complaint from March 2025.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Lloyds Bank's initial lending decision was fair and proportionate based on validated income, housing costs, credit commitments, and estimated living costs, resulting in sufficient disposable income. Regarding the gambling block, the ombudsman determined that the app clearly indicated it was a card freeze tool rather than a general transaction block, and it was reasonable to expect Miss W to review the FAQs for details about transaction limitations. The ombudsman rejected the argument that activation of a gambling freeze should have alerted Lloyds Bank to vulnerability in the absence of explicit disclosure by the customer.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website