Not upheld: investment scam - refund claim for authorised payments complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P lost significant funds to an investment scam after making multiple payments from her Santander account to an EMI account (T) between August and October 2025, which she believed was for currency exchange and travel purposes. Santander intervened on three occasions with phone calls asking about the payments, but Mrs P provided explanations (travel, inheritance transfers, currency needs) and stated she was aware of scams. Evidence later revealed Mrs P was being coached by the scammer on what information to provide to her bank, and she had taken out multiple loans as part of the scheme. The ombudsman found Santander's interventions were proportionate and that Mrs P had authorised the payments, and crucially, that further intervention would not have prevented the scam given the scammer's influence over her and her determination to proceed. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal starting position that banks must process authorised payments, with Mrs P presumed liable in the first instance. While banks may take additional steps to protect customers from fraud, the ombudsman found Santander's interventions were proportionate to the identified risks. Crucially, the ombudsman found that even if Santander had intervened further, it would not have made a difference due to the strong influence the scammer had over Mrs P, her trust in the scammer, and her willingness to provide coached responses to banking inquiries. The scam chat evidence demonstrated Mrs P was being actively coached on what to tell her bank, showing she would likely have persisted regardless of further warnings. The ombudsman also noted the funds passed through an account in Mrs P's own control before reaching the scammer, so recovery would not have been possible.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website