Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S complained that Santander failed to prevent her from making gambling transactions in February 2026 despite using the firm's gambling block feature, arguing she was vulnerable due to personal and family difficulties. Santander explained the transactions were not caught by the block because they were faster payments through a third-party provider rather than card transactions. The ombudsman found that Santander had previously sent fifteen emails between February 2024 and March 2025 warning Miss S about high gambling activity, but her account remained in credit with no other financial distress indicators. Since Miss S did not disclose her December 2025 personal difficulties to Santander, the firm had no reason to suspect ongoing problems and was not required to take further action. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reasoned that while banks must have systems to identify customers with spending problems, accounts are not manually reviewed and firms can only be alerted through specific indicators: fraudulent transactions, financial problems (overdrafts, credit applications), or unusual account activity. Miss S's account showed none of these warning signs as it remained in credit and she had not applied for credit. Although Santander had previously sent emails about gambling activity, the absence of further alerts after March 2025 combined with no financial distress indicators meant Santander had no reason to suspect ongoing problems. Critically, Miss S did not disclose her December 2025 personal difficulties to Santander, so the firm could not have known about them. The gambling block only covers card transactions, not faster payments through third parties, which Miss S should have been aware of given the clear on-app notification. Even if Santander had been alerted to the February 2026 transactions, it would not have had time to contact Miss S on the same day to prevent them.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website