Not upheld: gambling block effectiveness, duplicate transaction refunds, account monitoring complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that despite having a gambling block on his Halifax account, he was able to make gambling transactions between May and July 2025, and that Halifax should have done more to support him and identify duplicate transactions. Halifax refunded three duplicate payments totalling £310.20 but declined to refund the majority of gambling-related transactions, explaining that they were processed through third-party services not classified as gambling merchants. The ombudsman found that gambling blocks have inherent limitations based on merchant category codes applied by merchants themselves, not banks, and that it is the account holder's responsibility to monitor their account and identify duplicates. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that gambling blocks have inherent limitations and work only by preventing payments to merchants identified as gambling merchants through merchant category codes applied by merchants themselves. Since the transactions in question were processed through third-party companies and money transfer services not classified under gambling merchant category codes, the block worked as intended and Halifax made no error. Regarding duplicate transactions, the ombudsman found that it is the account holder's responsibility to monitor their account and identify duplicates, not the bank's obligation to detect them automatically. Banks are not required to individually monitor every customer's account for potentially harmful but legitimate spending. Since Mr W did not individually raise all outstanding duplicate transactions with Halifax, Halifax did nothing wrong in not investigating and refunding them.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website