Not upheld: disputed payments, gambling-related financial harm, chargeback handling complaint against Bank of Scotland plc, trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Halifax failed to protect him from financial harm due to compulsive gambling spending and did not take appropriate action on disputed payments made between late 2024 and early 2025 to an online casino using various merchant names. Halifax investigated, successfully charged back some payments, but declined to refund others, arguing they did not constitute a scam and that Mr D had confirmed the payments were legitimate during intervention calls. The ombudsman upheld Halifax's position, finding the payments did not meet the scam definition under the Reimbursement Rules because they went to the intended recipient for the intended purpose, and that Halifax's intervention and support offers were proportionate and appropriate. The complaint was not upheld, and Halifax's £200 compensation for poor communication was deemed sufficient.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the payments did not constitute a scam under the Reimbursement Rules because the payments went to the intended recipient (the casino) and were used for the intended purpose (gambling), despite the casino using different merchant names and codes. While the casino may have operated unethically or illegally, this did not constitute fraud as defined in the rules. Halifax took proportionate protective action by intervening and offering support, which Mr D declined. Chargebacks were unlikely to succeed under applicable scheme rules because Mr D received the services he paid for and had not placed a gambling freeze on his account.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website