Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R lost £144,000 to a crypto investment scam after making four payments from his Lloyds account in July 2025 to what he believed was a genuine investment opportunity. Lloyds intervened on each payment occasion, providing warnings about crypto and impersonation scams, but Mr R provided inaccurate information to proceed with the transactions. The ombudsman found that Lloyds acted fairly and reasonably, providing proportionate warnings based on the information disclosed, and that Mr R's deliberate circumvention of safeguards (including using multiple banking providers when one blocked crypto payments) demonstrated he would have proceeded regardless of intervention. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman could not find that Lloyds bore responsibility for the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a three-stage test: (1) whether Lloyds should have suspected fraud based on the payment circumstances; (2) whether Lloyds provided proportionate intervention; and (3) crucially, whether a proportionate intervention would have prevented the loss (causation). While Lloyds provided warnings on each occasion, the ombudsman found that Mr R deliberately provided inaccurate information and was determined to make the payments regardless, using multiple banking providers to circumvent blocks. The ombudsman concluded that even proportionate intervention would not have prevented the loss because Mr R was willing to circumvent safeguards and provide false information to proceed with the payments. The payments were to accounts in Mr R's own name at genuine crypto providers, which fell outside CRM code coverage. Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, Mr R authorised the payments and was presumed liable in the first instance.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website