Not upheld: failure to monitor account and prevent gambling transactions; alleged irresponsible lending/payment processing complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Lloyds Bank PLC failed to monitor his account and prevent 11 payments totalling £68,800 to an overseas online casino (Company M) via a crypto exchange between August and November 2024. Mr R alleged Company M was operating a scam and that Lloyds should have intervened given his known gambling vulnerability (evidenced by a previous card gambling block). The ombudsman found no credible evidence of fraud by Company M, noting it had positive reviews and no fraud investigations. While acknowledging Lloyds should have considered interventions for crypto payments, the ombudsman concluded that Mr R deliberately used crypto to circumvent his own gambling block and would likely have resisted Lloyds' intervention. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no credible evidence that Company M was operating a scam or had fraudulent intent. While Company M was unlicensed and unregulated in the UK, this alone does not indicate fraud. The ombudsman noted that overseas gambling companies commonly operate without UK registration and that Company M had positive reviews, no fraud investigations, and was responsive to complaints. Therefore, Lloyds' obligations to protect against fraud did not apply. Regarding vulnerability and gambling addiction support, while the ombudsman acknowledged Lloyds should have considered written warnings about crypto fraud risks and human interventions for larger payments, such interventions would likely not have prevented the payments because Mr R deliberately chose to use crypto to circumvent his own card gambling block and likely did not want Lloyds to discover his gambling activity.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website