Not upheld: scam liability and irresponsible payment processing complaint against Santander Bank UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Santander should reimburse him for over £26,000 lost to investment and investment recovery scams between 2023 and 2025. Mr B made multiple online payments from his Santander account to a cryptocurrency wallet in his own name, from which the funds were subsequently transferred to scammer-controlled accounts. Santander provided on-screen investment scam warnings but did not block the transactions or contact Mr B directly. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, determining that the payments were authorised by Mr B, were not sufficiently unusual to warrant intervention, and critically, that Mr B had already been warned by other account providers and the FOS about such scams since 2022 yet continued making payments. The ombudsman concluded that even more robust intervention by Santander would not have prevented the loss given Mr B's apparent determination to recover his initial losses despite prior knowledge of the scams.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr B authorised the payments, though he did not intend the money to reach scammers, making him presumed liable in the first instance under Payment Services Regulations. The payments were not sufficiently unusual or uncharacteristic to warrant intervention by Santander, being modest amounts spread over time and becoming normal account usage by 2024. Critically, the ombudsman concluded that even if Santander had intervened more robustly, it would not have prevented the loss because Mr B had already been warned by multiple sources (other banks and the FOS) about such scams since 2022, yet continued making payments regardless. The ombudsman found Mr B was 'deeply under the spell of the scammers' and determined to recover his losses despite prior warnings. Chargeback was not viable because the cryptocurrency provider had delivered the requested service (currency conversion) as expected.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website