Lloyds Bank Plc · DRN-6199666

The complaint Mr M complains that Lloyds Bank Plc won’t refund the money he says is lost as a result of a series of transactions he didn’t make or agree to. Mr M is represented throughout, but for ease of reading, I’ll refer to Mr M throughout the decision. Mr M has raised similar complaints for his business account and other accounts with other banks. These have been addressed under separate references. What happened Both parties are aware of the circumstances of the complaint, so I won’t repeat them all here. But briefly, Mr M has disputed numerous payments totalling £23,186.53 made from his platinum account using different bank card, £5,000 from his club account, £23,393.94 from one credit card and £3,173.32 from a second credit card throughout 2024 and 2025. He said he raised the disputes with Lloyds, but the bank treated him unfairly. Mr M said when he visited his local branch, the staff were rude and mentally and physically abused him when he asked for a refund of the payments and he had to call the police. Mr M said he’d been caused distress as the fraud had impacted hi financial security. and inconvenience by the bank’s actions, and his mental health had been severely impacted. He said Lloyds gave him a months’ notice that it would be closing his accounts, which was unfair as he hadn’t breached any of the terms and conditions of his accounts. Unhappy with Lloyds actions, Mr M complained to the bank. Lloyds didn’t uphold Mr M’s complaint. It said when Mr M had visited the local branch, fears had been raised for its staff’s safety, and it was satisfied its staff hadn’t acted unfairly. It said it had undertaken a review and made the decision to close Mr M’s accounts in line with its terms and conditions. Lloyds also said it had investigated the payments Mr M said were fraudulent on his account. However, at the time of the online payments, Mr M had been logged on to his online banking, and he’d told the bank no-one else knew the password. It also wasn’t persuaded there was sufficient explanation for how a fraudster could have accessed Mr M’s devices to make payments. Lloyds said it had also reviewed the debit card transactions and there wasn’t sufficient evidence to say they were fraudulent as Mr M said his cards were still in his possession and the withdrawals had been made using his genuine card and PIN. So, Lloyds declined to refund the payments disputed by Mr M. Our investigator didn’t recommend the complaint be upheld. He said Lloyds had provided some confidential information with our service which he wouldn’t be able to share, and having considered this and Mr M’s testimony he didn’t think Lloyds had behaved unreasonably by not refunding Mr M. He said based on the evidence available, he wasn’t persuaded the transactions disputed by Mr M were fraudulent, so he didn’t think it would be reasonable to ask Lloyds to reimburse Mr M.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr M didn’t agree. He said Lloyds had changed his address without his authority and hadn’t investigated the disputed transactions fairly. He said it was unfair for Lloyds not to reimburse his loss and said that Lloyds staff could have been involved. 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’m sorry to disappoint Mr M, but I’ve decided not to uphold his complaint. Mr M has provided a lot of information in support of his complaint. I’ve read and considered everything he has provided, and I recognise he says Lloyds should refund the transactions he’s disputed and that Lloyds actions have been unfair. However, I’m not persuaded Lloyds has behaved unreasonably here. I recognise Mr M feels Lloyds should reimburse him in line with the Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud reimbursement protection rules set out by the Payment Service Regulator in October 2024. However, I do want to explain to Mr M that these rules aren’t retrospective so even if I thought Lloyds should refund him under this rule, it would only apply to transactions which took place after this date. Furthermore, the rules only apply whereby someone has been tricked into sending payments to a fraudster via bank transfers – “push payments” are where payments are pushed through by the account holder. Debit card payments aren’t covered as ‘debit cards are “pull” payments, whereby the merchant takes the funds. And in any event, these rules aren’t applicable to Mr M’s complaint as he says he didn’t make the payments. I have received information from Lloyds in confidence, regarding its decision not to refund the transactions which Mr M claims were the result of fraud as he didn’t make them. I recognise that Mr M may wish to know more about this evidence and Lloyds’ decision, however, DISP rule 3.5.9(R) allows me to accept sensitive evidence in confidence – for example if it contains security procedures. I think it is appropriate here that this evidence remain confidential, therefore I won’t be commenting further on the specific evidence it has provided, nor will I be commenting on each specific transaction. The regulations relevant to this case are the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (the PSRs). These explain that, generally speaking, account holders will be liable for payments they’ve authorised, and banks will be liable for unauthorised payments. I’ve taken this into account when considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Lloyds isn’t persuaded the payments weren’t made by Mr M and I think its decision is reasonable. I say that because of the difference in how and when the transactions were undertaken. The payments are a mixture of online/ mobile banking and debit card/ATM payments. Mr M says he didn’t make the debit card payments, and his card could have been cloned. However, Mr M also appears to have confirmed receipt of the cards and said no-one else had access to his PIN. Additionally, over the period in question, the transactions disputed by Mr M were made using several different cards. On the balance of probability, I think it’s unlikely that a potential fraudster would have been able to access different cards during this period and obtain a PIN number for each of the cards to make the disputed withdrawals. Lloyds has also said there is no evidence a chip within a card could be cloned and therefore its likely a genuine card would have been used. Furthermore, I’ve seen copies of the debit card transactions made from Mr M’s accounts, and what appears to be genuine transactions – as Mr M hasn’t disputed them – being made around the same time Mr M says he didn’t make the withdrawals. I’ve also seen evidence

-- 2 of 3 --

from Lloyds where Mr M disputes he’s made certain card payments, which the electronic audit shows have been made via chip and PIN. There are other payments made on the same day around the same time which Mr M hasn’t disputed. It’s difficult to conclude these disputed payments were made by a fraudster using a card so close to the time Mr M was using his genuine card. Therefore, I think it was reasonable for Lloyds to say it thought Mr M was responsible for those payments and declined to reimburse him. This pattern is also repeated for the online payments Mr M has disputed. Mr M has said he didn’t make the online payments, but the relevant security information has been entered to undertake the payments. Mr M also says he hasn’t shared the log in or security information for his phone to be accessed or someone else to make them online via a different handset. However, genuine payments have been made around the same time, and I think it’s unlikely a fraudster guessed the online security information or was able to log into Mr M’s online banking around the same time the genuine payments were made without him noticing. Given the discrepancies in Mr M’s version of events and the information available to it, Lloyds has declined to refund Mr M. Based on all the evidence provided by both parties, I think this was reasonable. Overall, the evidence suggests that the transactions were more likely than not carried out by Mr M – and I see that it’s reasonable for Lloyds to decline to treat them as authorised and decline to reimburse him. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think these payments appeared usual or out of character for Mr M’s own transaction activity. Therefore, I don’t think there would have been any cause for concern to Lloyds, such that it ought reasonably to have contacted Mr M to see if the payments were genuine. So, I’m not persuaded that there is a reasonable reason to ask Lloyds to reimburse Mr M for the disputed transactions. Mr M told our service that Lloyds has acted unreasonably in giving notice of its intention to close his accounts as a result of the issues he experienced in the branch. As I wasn’t present at the time, I can’t be sure what happened. However, regardless of how matters escalated within the branch, I’m persuaded that there was some form of disagreement between Mr M and Lloyds staff. The terms of Mr M’s account with Lloyds say the bank can close an account without notice if a customer has behaved improperly, such as in a threatening or abusive manner. Lloyds has its own policies on what it considers acceptable behaviour, and that’s a commercial decision it’s able to make. The bank’s records show it was satisfied Mr M had behaved inappropriately and therefore it could have closed his accounts immediately. However, I can see that it gave Mr M a month’s notice of the account closures in writing, so I’m satisfied Mr M was given a reasonable opportunity to open an account elsewhere and I don’t Lloyds acted unreasonably here. I recognise that this will be disappointing for Mr M, and I acknowledge he says the impact of these transactions has been incredibly difficult for him. However, based on the information available to me I don’t think Lloyds has treated Mr M unfairly or behaved unreasonably. Therefore, I won’t be asking it to do anything more. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Jenny Lomax Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --