Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Starling Bank failed to prevent his excessive gambling spending on his account. After Starling identified a medium-risk gambling transaction in November 2025 and warned Mr S about excessive gambling, Mr S assured the bank it would not happen again but then spent several thousand pounds on gambling over the next couple of days. Mr S later disclosed his gambling addiction and requested chargebacks, which Starling declined as the payments were authorised and gambling transactions are not covered by chargeback rules. The ombudsman found that Starling acted reasonably by issuing a warning, accepting Mr S's assurance, and offering support such as referral to gambling helplines. The ombudsman concluded that customers bear responsibility for their own account use and that Starling could not have prevented authorised transactions without evidence of fraud or criminal activity.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reasoned that gambling transactions alone do not automatically indicate vulnerability or compulsive spending. Banks are not required to manually review accounts but must have systems to identify problems. Starling was alerted to potential issues through a flagged transaction and issued an appropriate warning. The ombudsman found it reasonable for Starling to accept Mr S's assurance that the behaviour would stop. Since the subsequent gambling payments occurred within days and Mr S had authorised them, Starling could not have blocked them without criminal or fraudulent activity. Additionally, under MasterCard rules, gambling transactions are not covered by the chargeback scheme. The ombudsman noted that customers bear responsibility for their own account use, and Starling had offered appropriate support including referral to gambling helplines and the availability of a gambling block.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website