Not upheld: failure to intervene in gambling activity / lack of monitoring complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that Starling Bank failed to question or intervene in a high volume of gambling transactions on her account between July and September 2025, totalling £22,446.27, which she attributed to personal circumstances and new medication. Starling declined the complaint, stating it was not aware of Miss H's circumstances until after the gambling occurred, there were no signs of financial difficulty, and it does not screen for gambling activity. The ombudsman found that while sympathising with Miss H's struggles, banks are not obligated to monitor gambling transactions as gambling is legal and customers have personal responsibility for their spending, and that the account showed no financial distress indicators that would have triggered intervention. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reasoned that while sympathising with Miss H's situation, banks are not obligated to monitor gambling transactions as gambling is legal and customers have personal responsibility for their spending. Although the account showed a clear deviation from established behaviour with high-volume gambling activity, the ombudsman found that without automated systems specifically designed to detect such patterns, and given the account showed no financial distress indicators, it would not be reasonable to expect Starling to have manually reviewed the account and intervened. The ombudsman also noted that even if Starling had proactively contacted Miss H about gambling tools, this would likely not have made a difference given she was already aware of and had previously used the gambling block.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website