Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company (RBS)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E, a customer with a known gambling addiction, complained that RBS failed to protect him from losing significant sums through betting shop transactions. He argued the bank should have maintained a gambling block on his replacement debit card and provided more support. RBS's Customer Protection team had offered multiple support options including gambling blocks and external referrals, which Mr E declined. When Mr E demanded cash withdrawals and threatened to close his account, the bank authorized the withdrawal and removed the gambling block. The ombudsman found that while RBS could have handled the situation better, it had offered appropriate support which Mr E refused, and could not legally prevent him from accessing his own funds when he explicitly rejected assistance and threatened account closure.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr E had a gambling addiction (a vulnerability), RBS had offered him appropriate and proportionate support through the Customer Protection team, including gambling blocks, reduced limits, and external support referrals. Mr E had actively declined these offers and refused to engage with external support. The ombudsman concluded that RBS could not prevent Mr E from accessing his own funds when he refused assistance and explicitly threatened to close his account. The bank's authorization of the branch withdrawal and removal of the block, while questionable, would not have prevented Mr E from accessing funds through other means (such as ATM withdrawals or account closure) given his stated intentions. The £100 compensation for service delay was considered fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website