Partially upheld: scam - failure to intervene on suspicious transaction pattern complaint against Starling Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6362010 of 2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00. scam - failure to intervene on suspicious transaction pattern complaint against Starling Bank Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6362010 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Starling Bank Limited |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | scam - failure to intervene on suspicious transaction pattern |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Starling Bank Limited must refund 50% of Mr L's loss from Payment 7 onwards (£700) and pay simple interest at time-weighted average Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point from the date of loss until settlement |
Summary
Mr L fell victim to a gift card scam after starting a new job when a scammer impersonating a senior colleague asked him to purchase gift cards and share the codes. Over approximately six hours, Mr L made 11 payments totalling £2,000 to purchase gift cards from various retailers. The ombudsman found that Starling Bank should have recognised the suspicious pattern of multiple same-value transactions made in quick succession and intervened by contacting Mr L before Payment 7. The ombudsman was satisfied that such contact would have uncovered the scam and prevented further losses. However, the ombudsman found Mr L shared equal responsibility for the loss due to red flags he should have noticed. Starling was ordered to refund 50% of losses from Payment 7 onwards (£700) plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while individual transaction values were low and made to reputable retailers, the pattern of activity was suspicious. Multiple payments of the same or similar value made in quick succession to the same or different retailers, combined with rapid account depletion through transfers, should have alerted Starling to a potential fraud risk by Payment 7. The ombudsman was satisfied that had Starling contacted Mr L to discuss the circumstances, the scam would have been uncovered, as this type of gift card scam is well-known. However, Mr L shared responsibility for the loss as he should have had concerns about the circumstances and the retailer's refusal to sell more gift cards should have prompted him to verify the request.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Starling Bank Limited, all decisions | 992 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website