Partially upheld: inadequate fraud prevention intervention and scam protection complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B, over 80 years old and not tech-savvy, fell victim to an investment scam after seeing an article endorsed by a well-known journalist. He invested £20,000 from his HSBC account into a digital wallet, which was immediately converted to cryptocurrency and withdrawn by scammers. HSBC stopped the payment and called Mr B, but the intervention was inadequate as the representative failed to address implausibilities about the account opening, did not provide information about multi-stage fraud, and did not adequately explore Mr B's previous scam victimisation. The ombudsman found HSBC should have done more to prevent the loss but also found Mr B partly responsible for not conducting independent research or questioning the implausibly high returns, resulting in a 50% refund plus interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr B was likely scammed based on plausible testimony supported by third-party evidence including transaction records showing common hallmarks of investment scams. HSBC appropriately intervened due to the unusual nature of the payment, but the intervention was inadequate. The representative failed to address implausibilities around the account opening with Bank H, did not challenge Mr B's lack of answers, did not provide information about multi-stage scams, and did not adequately explore Mr B's previous scam victimisation despite Mr B mentioning it. However, Mr B bore some responsibility as he did not conduct independent research, did not check if the company was registered, did not question the implausibly high returns, and did not seek documentation. The ombudsman concluded shared responsibility was fair and reasonable, with HSBC bearing 50% responsibility.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website