Lloyds Bank PLC · DRN-6231699

The complaint Mr E complains that Lloyds Bank PLC did not reimburse the funds he lost to a scam. What happened Mr E says he received a text message from a woman he did not know. They began talking and eventually she explained she was an investment broker and could help him invest in cryptocurrency. He signed up to the platform she showed him, and he began investing under her guidance. When he tried to withdraw his returns, he was told he had to pay fees. Despite paying a number of these, he did not receive a return of his funds. He sent a number of payments from his Lloyds account to a cryptocurrency wallet in his name, before forwarding it onto the investment. These came to £20,700 and were sent between 4 November 2024 and 25 February 2025. Eventually, Mr E realised he had been the victim of a scam and raised a scam claim with Lloyds. They explained that as the payments went to another account in his name, they were not covered by relevant schemes that provide additional protection to victims of scams. And they did not think they needed to reimburse him in the circumstances. He referred the complaint to our service via a representative. Our Investigator looked into the complaint, but did not think they had enough evidence to be satisfied a scam had occurred in the way Mr E had described. He had been able to provide a conversation with an individual, but this began over two months after the scam ended. And he could provide a spreadsheet of his cryptocurrency statements, but the figures did not fully align with the funds Mr E sent from his Lloyds’ account. Mr E explained that he had changed his mobile phone since the scam occurred, and he no longer had the original conversation with the scammer, or any screenshots relating to the scam or log in access to his crypto account. But he felt it was clear he had been the victim of a scam and should not be penalised for not having the relevant evidence. As an informal agreement could not be reached, the complaint has been passed to me for a final decision. 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. I firstly have to consider if I have seen enough evidence to be satisfied a scam has occurred in the way Mr E has described. I want to make it clear that I do not doubt that Mr E has been truthful about what has happened, but memories can fade over time, and we would need to be satisfied it is more likely that a scam has occurred. I do appreciate that Mr E has said he has changed mobile phones and therefore no longer has access to a lot of evidence related to the scam. He has been able to provide a conversation over a messaging app, but I note this began over two months after the scam ended. He has said this conversation is a continuation of the old chat with the scammer, but having reviewed it this seems unlikely to me. I say this because Mr E asked the individual in the chat who they are, and they responded to explain he had blocked their old number on Whatsapp. I therefore think it is more likely this is a new conversation and not a continuation

-- 1 of 2 --

of the old one. While this in itself may not seem particularly important, it does make it more difficult to safely rely on Mr E’s testimony. Mr E has also been able to provide a spreadsheet showing his cryptocurrency statements from his cryptocurrency wallet provider. Unfortunately, it is difficult to rely on this as the amounts don’t fully match up to the Lloyds statements. They also show that there was activity on the cryptocurrency wallet on 15 October 2024, before the payments began from Mr E’s Lloyds account. This again makes it difficult for me to rely on Mr E’s testimony of what happened. I appreciate that Mr E is limited on what he can provide our service in terms of evidence, and I do not want to penalise him for no longer having access to his old device. But in order for me to be able to fully assess this complaint, I need to understand how Mr E found out about the ‘investment’, what his understanding of it was, what his relationship with the scammer was like and how he was told to process the payments. In some cases I can rely solely on what the consumer has said, but for the reasons set out above I do not think I can safely rely on Mr E’s testimony alone. In addition to this, even if I were to agree that I had seen enough to be satisfied a scam had occurred, it would be difficult to safely conclude an intervention in the payments by Lloyds could have meaningfully revealed the scam. I say this because I do not know what Mr E understood about the ‘investment’, how it was positioned by the scammer and if Mr E was manipulated into lying to the banks to ensure the payments were processed. As a result, having carefully considered everything available to me, I think it was reasonable that Lloyds declined to reimburse Mr E in the circumstances. My final decision I do not uphold Mr E’s complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Rebecca Norris Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --