Upheld: failure to prevent investment scam through inadequate fraud intervention complaint against Lloyds Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6418465 of 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. failure to prevent investment scam through inadequate fraud intervention complaint against Lloyds Bank Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6418465 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lloyds Bank Plc |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | failure to prevent investment scam through inadequate fraud intervention |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund all 5 payments totalling £12,500 (£500 + £1,500 + £2,000 + £6,000 + £3,000) plus 8% simple interest per year from the date of each payment to the date of settlement |
Summary
Mr P was targeted by an investment scam after meeting someone on a dating website in April 2025. He made 5 payments totalling £12,500 to his own cryptocurrency account between 12-27 May 2025, which were then transferred to the scammer. Lloyds blocked an earlier attempted payment and spoke with Mr P on 8 May 2025 about fraud concerns, but failed to ask probing questions about how he heard of the investment or who was advising him. The ombudsman found that had Lloyds asked these basic follow-up questions, Mr P would have disclosed the dating website connection, which would have alerted Lloyds to the known scam pattern and likely prompted him to withdraw from the investment given his existing doubts. Lloyds was ordered to refund all payments plus 8% interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Lloyds had identified fraud risk and intervened on 8 May 2025 but failed to ask probing follow-up questions such as how Mr P heard about the investment or who was advising him. Had Lloyds asked these basic questions, Mr P would likely have answered honestly that he met the adviser on a dating website, which would have caused Lloyds real concern given its familiarity with this scam type. Given Mr P's existing doubts about the investment and his demonstrated willingness to refuse the scammer's requests to borrow money and lie to his bank, it is likely he would have heeded Lloyds' warning and not proceeded with the investment. There is insufficient evidence that Mr P would have been dishonest with Lloyds, as he answered questions honestly during the 8 May call and refused to lie to his bank when the scammer requested it.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lloyds Bank Plc, all decisions | 19,826 | 16% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website