Partially upheld: inadequate fraud prevention and scam intervention complaint against Northern Bank Limited trading as Danske Bank
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6344562 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. inadequate fraud prevention and scam intervention complaint against Northern Bank Limited trading as Danske Bank. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6344562 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Northern Bank Limited trading as Danske Bank |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | inadequate fraud prevention and scam intervention |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Pay Mr Q £4,500 (representing 50% of the £7,100 transaction loss, as Danske is responsible for losses from that transaction onwards) plus 8% simple interest per annum from the date of each transaction to the date of settlement. Tax deduction certificate to be provided if legally required. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs Q complained that Danske Bank refused to reimburse funds lost when Mr Q fell victim to a cryptocurrency job scam between August-September 2025, totalling £14,082. The scammer coached Mr Q to lie about the reason for payments and gradually escalated requests for funds. Danske intervened with a brief phone call regarding a £7,100 payment but failed to ask probing questions or adequately explain cryptocurrency scam risks. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding Danske responsible for losses from the £7,100 transaction onwards but applying a 50% contributory negligence reduction to reflect Mr Q's failure to question the unusual job offer, unrealistic earnings, and lack of documentation. The bank was ordered to pay £4,500 plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Danske should have recognised the heightened fraud risk when Mr Q made a £3,600 payment to a cryptocurrency provider on 28 August 2025, representing an escalation in spending over a short timeframe. The subsequent £7,100 payment the same day was highly unusual and out of character. While Danske did call Mr Q about the £7,100 payment, the intervention was insufficient - the call lasted only minutes, questions were mostly yes/no requiring no probing, and Danske failed to explore the involvement of Mr Q's son (a common scam indicator) or explain the specific risks of cryptocurrency job scams. Had Danske asked deeper questions and brought the scam to life with context, Mr Q would have recognised red flags given his documented concerns about the scheme. However, Mr Q bears 50% responsibility due to the unusual nature of the job offer, the unrealistic earnings promised, the lack of documentation, and his failure to conduct basic research.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Northern Bank Limited trading as Danske Bank, all decisions | 6 | 8% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website