Partially upheld: failure to prevent investment scam through inadequate fraud intervention and warnings complaint against Metro Bank PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6369646 of 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00. failure to prevent investment scam through inadequate fraud intervention and warnings complaint against Metro Bank PLC. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6369646 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Metro Bank PLC |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | failure to prevent investment scam through inadequate fraud intervention and warnings |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Metro Bank must refund 50% of each payment after deducting: (1) returns Mr M received after initial payments, and (2) the £198.38 recovered amount from the final payment. Metro Bank must also add interest at 8% simple from the date of each payment to the date of settlement. |
Summary
Mr M lost £12,502.60 in an investment scam after seeing a social media advertisement and making payments to overseas companies between May and August 2025. Metro Bank claimed it provided effective scam warnings but failed to provide any evidence despite multiple requests, and Mr M stated he received no warnings. The ombudsman found Metro Bank should have intervened with basic questions that would likely have uncovered the scam. However, Mr M was held equally responsible (50%) for his loss because he should have noticed warning signs including the social media source, unrealistic returns of several hundred percent in two months, and payments to companies unrelated to his supposed investment. Metro Bank was ordered to refund 50% of the net loss with 8% interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Metro Bank failed to provide evidence of the warnings and interventions it claimed to have made, despite multiple requests. The ombudsman found it more likely than not that no effective warnings were actually provided. Had Metro Bank asked basic questions about the payment purpose and investment details, it would likely have uncovered the scam and Mr M would have heeded a clear bank warning. However, Mr M bore some responsibility because warning signs were present: investing through social media, unrealistic returns (several hundred percent in two months), and payments to companies unrelated to the supposed investment company.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Metro Bank PLC, all decisions | 1,221 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website