Not upheld: irresponsible lending / failure to intervene due to signs of financial distress complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as first direct

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Y complained that first direct failed in its duty of care by not intervening when he made approximately 160 payments to trading platforms between February and June 2025, which he attributed to gambling addiction and often involved using his overdraft facility. First direct argued the transactions were to legitimate platforms with regular credits received, and the overdraft was quickly repaid. The ombudsman found that the transactions were not unusual or suspicious enough to warrant intervention, the overdraft usage remained within limits, and first direct took appropriate supportive steps once made aware of Mr Y's circumstances. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Banks do not routinely monitor individual transactions and rely on algorithms to identify unusual activity. The transactions Mr Y made, while numerous, were consistent in amount (£100-£500), similar to each other, and accompanied by regular credits from the same platforms. These factors meant the transactions were not unusual or suspicious enough to trigger intervention. Mr Y's overdraft usage remained within limits with quick repayment, so this was not a cause for concern. Once first direct became aware of Mr Y's circumstances, it took appropriate supportive steps.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website