Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Barclays failed to notice significant gambling activity on his account and provide appropriate support, resulting in substantial financial losses and personal distress. Mr C argued that if Barclays had intervened earlier, he would have sought help sooner and his gambling addiction would not have escalated. Barclays acknowledged the gambling activity upon manual review and offered support tools and external signposting, paying £200 compensation. The ombudsman found that Barclays was not required to proactively monitor gambling transactions as gambling is legal, the account was generally well-managed, and there was no certainty that earlier intervention would have changed Mr C's behaviour, particularly given that gambling continued after Barclays provided information about available support.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while gambling activity was evident on the account, this alone was insufficient to require Barclays to intervene without additional context. Banks are not expected to manually review every customer's transactions or specifically monitor gambling activity, as gambling is legal and customers are free to spend their money as they choose. Although a missed direct debit letter in March 2025 presented a potential opportunity for intervention, without a response from Mr C explaining his circumstances, this was not enough to reasonably expect Barclays to conduct a manual review. The ombudsman noted that even if Barclays had informed Mr C about support tools earlier, there is no certainty this would have changed his behaviour, particularly given that gambling continued after Barclays provided information about available support.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website