Santander UK Plc · DRN-6117413

The complaint Mrs T complains about Santander UK Plc. She would like it to refund her the money she lost when she was the victim of a scam. What happened Mrs T joined a dating site on social media to help her feel less lonely after the death of her husband in 2019. She began speaking with an individual who claimed he worked in antiques in Birmingham. They built up a rapport and the conversation moved to a messaging platform. The individual told Mrs T that they were on their way to South Africa to purchase antiques as part of their business and continued to chat while he was there. He then told Mrs T that his bank account had been frozen and asked her if she could send him some money to allow him to purchase the antiques and then he would repay her when she returned to the UK. Mrs T transferred £170,000 over six separate transactions. After the individual returned to the UK, he told Mrs T that he had been hospitalised with Covid-19 and asked if she could send him more money – but she explained that she wasn’t able to do so. Soon after, she received a phone call from the individual’s son, asking for help – but she explained that she didn’t have any more money. Contact was then cut, and Mrs T realised that she had been the victim of a scam. She complained to Santander about what had happened. Santander refunded Mrs T £10,000 as it was covered by the Lending Standard’s Boards Contingent Reimbursement Model Code (CRM Code) – and also managed to retrieve a further £10,000 from one of the receiving banks. However, it declined to refund Mrs T the other payments were not covered by the CRM Code, and Mrs T wasn’t honest with it when it intervened while making the payments. Mrs T then brought her complaint to this Service where it was considered by our Investigator. Our Investigator explained that while they were very sorry Mrs T had lost her money to a cruel scam, that they didn’t think that it should be upheld. Mrs T asked for an Ombudsman to make a final decision, so the complaint has been passed to me. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I have decided not to uphold this complaint. I know this will be very disappointing for Mrs T, especially as there is so much money at stake, and the funds came

-- 1 of 3 --

from her late husband’s life policy. I know this has been a very upsetting time. I should start by saying that although I am not upholding this complaint, I am naturally sympathetic to Mrs T’s situation, and I do not doubt that she has been the victim of an especially cruel scam. I’m sorry she’s gone through such a difficult experience. However, my role here isn’t to establish if Mrs T has been scammed or not – it is very clear that she has been. But to find if Santander can reasonably be held responsible for her losses. And I’m afraid that I don’t find that it can. I will explain why. Santander has already refunded Mrs T two payments in full – so I won’t be considering these payments as part of my decision. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that Banks and other payment service providers (PSP’s) such as Santander is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations (in this case the 2017 regulations) and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. But, taking into account relevant law, regulators’ rules and guidance, relevant codes of practice and what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time, I consider it fair and reasonable that Santander should: • Have been monitoring accounts and any payments made or received to counter various risks, including preventing fraud and scams; • Have had systems in place to look out for unusual transactions or other signs that might indicate that its customers were at risk of fraud. This is particularly so given the increase in sophisticated fraud and scams in recent years, which firms are generally more familiar with than the average customer; • In some circumstances, irrespective of the payment channel used, have taken additional steps, or made additional checks, or provided additional warnings, before processing a payment; • Have been mindful of – among other things – common scam scenarios, how fraudulent practices are evolving (including for example the common use of multi- stage fraud by scammers, including the use of payments to cryptocurrency accounts as a step to defraud consumers) and the different risks these can present to consumers, when deciding whether to intervene. All of Mrs T’s payments were made in branch, and so would have been discussed at the time, but Santander hasn’t provided details of any of these conversations. I would have expected Santander to have a conversation about scams with Mrs T at the time that she made her first payment and asked her what the money was for and why. However, I am also not persuaded that Mrs T would have been forthcoming with the truth about what she was doing – or listened to any warnings that Santander provided her. I say this because after the last international payment that Mrs T made, Santander flagged her account, and a member of its fraud team called her to discuss what she had been doing. Santander attempted to ask Mrs T about the payments, and Mrs T told it that she was sending money to South Africa to renovate a property that she and her husband had purchased prior to his death. Santander was not satisfied with what Mrs T was telling it – it said that it thought that she

-- 2 of 3 --

was being scammed, and it had concerns that the builders she said she was paying were not legitimate – that they could find no record of them, and that Mrs T was not being truthful. It gave Mrs T a day to consider things and called her back the next day – but even on reflection, Mrs T maintained that the purpose was legitimate, and that she was being honest. Mrs T’s representatives said that the warning should have come much earlier – and that Mrs T may have been more receptive to what Santander was trying to tell her as she wouldn’t have parted with her money at this point, and so would have been less entrenched in the scam. They also say that Santander should have been firmer with her and asked to see invoices to support what she had said. But while I agree that an earlier intervention would have been preferable, Mrs T being more receptive to an intervention at this point is hypothetical, and her later actions don’t give me reassurance that this would have been the case. I also can’t ignore that Mrs T made a further payment after these conversations took place for another £10,000 (which has been refunded as it was covered by the CRM code). So, I am satisfied that Mrs T was so taken in, that she would not have listened to Santander. I don’t blame Mrs T for what happened to her – scammers are practiced criminals, skilled at taking advantage of people and manipulating them, especially those who have had unfortunate circumstances like Mrs T that they can use against them. However, for me to uphold this complaint, I would have to find that an earlier intervention would have made a difference, and I’m afraid that I don’t think it would. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs T to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Claire Pugh Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --