Upheld: failure to prevent fraud/scam through inadequate intervention complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B fell victim to a scam where someone impersonating her son requested £410 for a mobile phone repair. Her first payment attempt for this amount was blocked due to fraud concerns, but she successfully made a second payment of £410 via card shortly after. Santander failed to intervene on the second payment despite the identical amount and close timing to the blocked payment, which should have triggered fraud alerts. The ombudsman found Santander breached its obligations under the Payment Services Regulations and Consumer Duty by not conducting a proportionate human intervention that would have uncovered the scam. Considering Mrs B's vulnerability due to her health condition and medication effects, the ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered a full refund of £410 plus interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although the second payment was for a low amount via a different method to a different payee, the combination of timing and identical amount (£410) to the previously blocked payment presented a high fraud risk. Santander should have conducted a human intervention to question Mrs B about the payment. A trained fraud agent would have detected the scam through probing questions. Mrs B's vulnerability due to her health condition, medication effects on sleep and decision-making, and being alone at the time, meant contributory negligence should not apply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website