Not upheld: scam - failure to prevent financial harm through intervention complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A fell victim to a job scam where he sent over £19,000 between 9-15 April 2025 to complete tasks for a fake remote job opportunity. Lloyds intervened on 9 April 2025 when a £550 payment was attempted, but Mr A falsely claimed it was for a friend in Mexico, following instructions from the scammer to avoid mentioning work. Mr A complained that Lloyds should have prevented the scam through intervention and reimbursed his losses. The ombudsman found that while Lloyds should have intervened at the final payment on 10 April 2025, an intervention would not have uncovered the scam because Mr A was deliberately misleading the bank under the scammer's influence and would have continued to do so. The complaint was not upheld and no reimbursement was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Lloyds should have intervened at the final payment on 10 April 2025 based on the suspicious pattern and speed of payments, an intervention would not reasonably have uncovered the scam. Mr A was so heavily influenced by the scammer that he deliberately misled Lloyds about the payment purpose when they did intervene on 9 April 2025, following the scammer's explicit instructions. Without Mr A revealing the true purpose of the payments, Lloyds could not have provided a specific warning about the job scam. The customer was not identified as vulnerable to Lloyds prior to the scam, and falling victim to a scam does not automatically make someone vulnerable under the Consumer Duty.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website