Not upheld: inadequate scam protection and fraud prevention measures complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H lost £11,215 to an investment scam between October 2024 and February 2025 after being contacted by a scammer who built trust and gained remote access to his device. He made four payments, with Santander intervening only at the final £5,000 payment on 25 February 2025, providing scam warnings which Mr H disregarded. The ombudsman found that while Santander should have intervened earlier at the £5,000 December payment (which was out of character and to a cryptocurrency platform), the intervention at payment four was effective and Mr H's explicit confirmation to proceed despite warnings closely mirroring his situation meant an earlier warning would likely not have changed the outcome. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Santander should have intervened with a tailored warning at payment two (£5,000 to cryptocurrency platform) as it was out of character and carried heightened fraud risk. However, the ombudsman found that on balance, such an intervention would not have changed the outcome because: (1) Santander did intervene effectively at payment four with human intervention and relevant scam warnings; (2) Mr H explicitly confirmed he was in control, had researched his investments, was not being advised by a third party, and chose to proceed despite warnings that closely mirrored his situation; and (3) while Mr H stopped payments after payment four, this was because he believed he was making a legitimate investment at that time, not because he would have acted differently with an earlier warning.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website