Not upheld: failure to identify and respond to gambling vulnerability; poor complaint handling; failure to apply support indicator complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Y complained that Barclays failed to identify and respond to his gambling vulnerability between June 2021 and August 2023, during which he lost approximately £50,000 to gambling. His account showed clear patterns of escalating gambling transactions, use of payday loans, and missed payments, yet Barclays took no action until Mr Y disclosed his addiction in August 2023. Mr Y argued that FCA guidance FG21/1 required Barclays to proactively identify vulnerability through account monitoring rather than relying on customer disclosure. The ombudsman rejected this interpretation, finding that the guidance places primary responsibility on customers to disclose vulnerabilities and that banks are not required to monitor spending patterns to identify gambling harm. The ombudsman noted that Mr Y's account showed no large sustained debit or credit applications that would typically alert banks to financial difficulty, and that tools were available to Mr Y to prevent gambling transactions which he did not utilise. The complaint was not upheld, and the £350 compensation already paid for service failures was deemed fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman disagreed with Mr Y's interpretation of FCA guidance FG21/1, finding that the onus is on customers to disclose vulnerabilities rather than on firms to proactively identify them through account monitoring. While the guidance encourages firms to be aware of vulnerability indicators, it does not require them to monitor spending patterns to identify gambling harm or intervene absent clear disclosure or indication of need. The ombudsman found that gambling activity alone, even at high levels, is not an automatic indicator requiring intervention. Banks are expected to process authorised legitimate transactions without hindrance and typically only become aware of gambling problems through customer disclosure or signs of financial difficulty such as overdrafts or declined payments. Mr Y's account showed no large or sustained debit, no credit applications, and only minor temporary debits, providing insufficient trigger for intervention. The ombudsman noted that tools were available to Mr Y (gambling blocks, card freezes, transaction limits) which he did not utilise, suggesting he may not have recognised the problem until August 2023. The temporary cessation of gambling after Barclays' intervention does not establish that earlier intervention would have prevented all harmful gambling.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website