Not upheld: inadequate gambling controls and failure to intervene in harmful spending complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A, who has a compulsive spending problem and was experiencing mental health issues, placed a £100 gambling block on her Halifax account but continued to make gambling transactions between April and November 2025 with companies that did not declare themselves as gambling merchants. She complained that Halifax should have identified the spending pattern and intervened, particularly given her vulnerability. Halifax explained that the gambling block only works for merchants identified as gambling businesses through merchant category codes assigned by the merchants themselves, not the bank. The ombudsman found the block functioned as designed, that gambling is lawful, and that banks are not required to monitor or intervene in authorised spending. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that gambling blocks work by declining transactions to merchants identified as gambling businesses through merchant category codes assigned by merchants, not banks. Since the transactions in question were not classified as gambling by the merchants, Halifax's block could not have stopped them. The ombudsman concluded that gambling is a lawful activity and banks are not generally required to monitor authorised transactions or intervene based on spending patterns alone. There were no clear signs of fraud or account mismanagement that should have alerted Halifax to intervene before Miss A contacted them. When Miss A did contact Halifax, it responded appropriately by explaining the block's limitations and providing support resources.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website