Not upheld: inadequate scam protection and insufficient intervention on suspicious transactions complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H lost over £100,000 to a cryptocurrency investment scam after seeing a social media advertisement and being guided by a scammer to set up accounts and make payments. He complained that Lloyds Bank failed to adequately protect him despite making 13 payments between January and May 2025. Lloyds Bank intervened on the first five payments, providing warnings about cryptocurrency scams and questioning Mr H's intentions, but he insisted on proceeding. The ombudsman found that while Mr H was likely a scam victim, Lloyds Bank's interventions were reasonable and proportionate, and further intervention would not have likely changed the outcome given Mr H's consistent determination to proceed despite warnings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that while clear evidence of the scam loss was not provided (Mr H could not supply cryptocurrency statements), the other evidence including communications with the scammer and Mr H's testimony supported that he was likely a victim of fraud. However, the ombudsman found that Lloyds Bank's interventions on the first five payments were proportionate and reasonable, with clear warnings about cryptocurrency scam risks given and Mr H explicitly stating he was aware of risks and could afford losses. Although the ombudsman agreed that further intervention at payment nine would have been proportionate, the evidence showed Mr H was not concerned about his investment at that stage and previous interventions had not deterred him, so further intervention would likely not have changed the outcome.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website