Not upheld: scam/investment fraud - failure to intervene on suspicious payments to crypto complaint against Metro Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Miss L lost approximately £140,000 to an investment scam between September 2024 and January 2025 after discovering the fraudulent firm online and being coached by scammers to purchase crypto and install remote access software. She complained to Metro Bank PLC for failing to protect her from the scam. Although the ombudsman found Metro should have intervened before processing the third and later high-value crypto payments, the complaint was not upheld because Miss L was heavily manipulated by the scammers and had already demonstrated to another banking provider that she would provide inaccurate information and ignore fraud warnings, making it unlikely that Metro's intervention would have prevented the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Metro should have intervened before processing the third and later payments due to high value and crypto fraud risk, the ombudsman found that proportionate interventions would not have prevented the loss. This is because Miss L was heavily under the scammer's influence and had already demonstrated to another banking provider that she would provide inaccurate information and ignore warnings. The scam chat evidence showed Miss L sought the scammer's guidance after receiving fraud warnings from R, indicating she would likely have similarly misled Metro. The ombudsman concluded that causation was not established - even if Metro had intervened, Miss L would likely have continued to be manipulated by the scammer.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website