Not upheld: failure to prevent fraud/scam complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C lost over £25,000 in a fake job scam where he was persuaded to make payments to a crypto exchange which were then sent to the scammer. He requested Halifax refund the losses, arguing they should have prevented the scam through appropriate intervention. While the ombudsman found Halifax should have intervened on some transactions, it concluded such intervention would not have stopped the scam because Mr C had provided misleading answers to similar interventions from another provider and would have done the same with Halifax. The complaint was not upheld as Halifax has no obligation to refund under APP reimbursement schemes and could not have recovered the funds once sent to the scammer.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Halifax should have intervened on some transactions to enquire about their purpose, the ombudsman found that such intervention would not have prevented the scam. The key evidence was that Mr C's other account provider did intervene, but Mr C provided misleading answers (denying job opportunity involvement, confirming no third-party involvement, denying funds were being sent on). The ombudsman concluded that had Halifax intervened, Mr C would have given the same misleading answers, preventing the scam from being uncovered. Additionally, Halifax has no obligation to refund under APP reimbursement schemes as payments were made to accounts under Mr C's control, and funds could not have been recovered from the crypto exchange as they had already been sent to company B.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website