Not upheld: failure to protect vulnerable customer from gambling; inadequate safeguarding measures complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B, a vulnerable customer with a gambling addiction, complained that Santander failed to protect him after he made £1,500 in gambling payments despite the firm being aware of his vulnerabilities and having implemented restrictions. Santander had initially blocked his debit card and set his online banking to view-only mode with his consent. However, Mr B subsequently requested cancellation of online banking entirely, and when he re-established it on 2 October 2024, the restrictions were not automatically reapplied. The ombudsman found that Santander's initial protective measures were fair and reasonable, and that Mr B's decision to bypass the restrictions by re-establishing online banking without re-applying them was his own choice rather than a firm error. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman acknowledged that manual review of Mr B's statements might have raised concerns, banks cannot reasonably be expected to manually review every customer's transactions. Automated monitoring systems are designed to detect fraud and illegal activity, not gambling transactions per se. The key issue was that Mr B himself chose to cancel the view-only restriction and re-establish online banking without re-applying the restrictions—this was Mr B's decision, not an error by Santander. The ombudsman found it would be unfair to expect Santander to make decisions for Mr B or deny him the ability to make decisions about his own account, especially after prior advice and support had been provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website