Not upheld: failure to intervene on gambling activity and provide support complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Barclays failed to notice gambling activity on his account from March to December 2025 and provide appropriate support or intervention, resulting in significant financial losses and distress to his family. Although Mr H acknowledged authorising the gambling transactions, he argued that the abnormal pattern of account activity should have alerted Barclays to his vulnerability and prompted intervention. Barclays declined to uphold the complaint, stating Mr H was free to spend his money as he pleased and had not informed them of any gambling problem. The ombudsman found that while banks should intervene where they should reasonably become aware something is wrong, gambling transactions alone are insufficient to trigger intervention as gambling is legal and customers have personal responsibility for their spending. The ombudsman was not persuaded that proactive contact from Barclays would have prevented the losses, noting that personal intervention from Mr H's wife was ultimately required to stop the behaviour.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reasoned that while banks should intervene where they should reasonably become aware something is wrong, gambling transactions alone are insufficient to trigger intervention because gambling is legal and customers have personal responsibility for their spending. The ombudsman noted that banks cannot be expected to manually review every customer's transactions, and automated monitoring systems are not obligated to flag gambling based on volume alone. The account appeared to be used for leisure spending with regular credits and no essential bill payments, making the gambling activity less obviously indicative of vulnerability. Additionally, even if Barclays had proactively contacted Mr H about available support, the ombudsman was not persuaded this would have prevented the losses, as personal intervention by his wife was required to stop the behaviour.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website