TSB Bank plc · DRN-6104512

THE COMPLAINT Mrs H’s complaint is about TSB Bank plc (“TSB”). Mrs H is represented by her daughter in this matter. WHAT HAPPENED Mrs H’s daughter acts under a Lasting Power of Attorney (“LPA”) for her accounts. In January 2024, a £20,000 TSB loan was opened in Mrs H’s name. Thereafter, £22,000 was debited from her TSB account and credited to a Santander account held by her daughter. Mrs H’s daughter accepts making this transfer, and further accepts moving the funds through her Lloyds and Chase accounts before sending £22,500 to a third party who she claims was a scammer. Mrs H’s daughter says she acted at the behest of the scammer who deceived her into believing they were a financial adviser and that the money was for an investment. Mrs H’s daughter, acting as LPA, disputed this with TSB. When TSB refused to write off the Loan, she raised a complaint and referred it to our Service. One of our investigators considered the complaint and upheld it in part. She concluded that Mrs H’s daughter, acting as LPA, had consented to the Loan, and so it should not be written off. However, given the circumstances of this case, the investigator recommended that TSB cease charging further interest on the Loan and deduct any interest already applied. TSB initially disagreed with these findings but later accepted them. Mrs H’s daughter did not accept the investigator’s assessment. Consequently, this matter has been passed to me to make a decision. It should be noted that Mrs H’s daughter also raised a related complaint, in her own capacity, against Chase, which this Service has considered and resolved. That complaint concerned payments she made towards the alleged scam from her Chase account, some of which were linked to the Loan. Chase made a partial refund in that case. WHAT I HAVE 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 find that the investigator at first instance was right to reach the conclusion she did. This is for reasons I set out in this decision. I would like to say at the outset that I have summarised this complaint in far less

-- 1 of 3 --

detail than the parties involved. I want to stress that no discourtesy is intended by this. If there is a submission I have not addressed, it is not because I have ignored the point. It is simply because my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issues in this complaint. Further, under section 225 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, I am required to resolve complaints quickly and with minimum formality. Key findings I need to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether Mrs H’s daughter, acting as LPA, consented to the Loan being opened in her mother’s name. If I find that Mrs H’s daughter did not consent, the Loan could potentially be written off, subject to what happened to the proceeds. If I find that she did consent – either because she applied for the Loan herself as LPA, or authorised someone else to do so – Mrs H will be liable for it. Mrs H’s daughter has explained that she cannot clearly remember how the Loan was taken out. Based on a telephone call between her and the investigator, it appears that the alleged scammer may have completed the Loan application process, but with Mrs H’s daughter’s authority. I have taken this into account together with the following factors: • Mrs H’s daughter’s email address appears on the Loan application. • Mrs H’s daughter has confirmed that she received TSB’s confirmation about the Loan. • She moved the proceeds of the Loan through several accounts (TSB to Santander to Lloyds to Chase to the alleged scammer). • She confirmed to Santander over the telephone that the Loan proceeds were for a funeral. • She has made repayments towards the Loan. Taken together, these points satisfy me that, on balance, Mrs H’s daughter, acting as LPA, consented to the Loan. Ordinarily, such a finding would mean that Mrs H is liable for all obligations under the Loan agreement. However, the investigator held, amongst other things, “With that said, I don’t believe it appropriate for TSB to benefit by receiving interest on top of the loan in question, as it’s clear that these funds were used for the purposes of a scam.” TSB accepted the investigator’s findings. Accordingly, I will not interfere.

-- 2 of 3 --

Mrs H’s daughter’s main point of disagreement is that TSB should write off the outstanding balance of the Loan because it was taken out only as a result of her having fallen victim to a scam. I reject this argument. Even accepting that she was the victim of a scam, she nevertheless consented to the Loan. Fairness requires that I consider both parties, and it would not be fair to TSB to direct a write off on the basis that she was misled into consenting. Responsibility rests with the scammer, not TSB. I note Mrs H’s daughter’s points about the difficulty in repaying the Loan. However, these reasons do not justify the Loan being written off. If Mrs H’s daughter wishes, she can contact TSB to discuss a potential repayment plan. In my judgment, the above is a fair and reasonable outcome in the circumstances of this complaint. MY FINAL DECISION For the reasons set out above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint in part. Therefore, I direct TSB Bank plc to: • Stop applying further interest to the Loan; and • Refund any interest charged since the Loan was opened to the Loan balance. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs H to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Tony Massiah Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --