DRN-6125689

The complaint Miss G complains Bank of Scotland plc, trading as “Halifax”, refuses to refund her for transactions on her account which she says were not authorised. What happened The facts of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them in detail here. In short, Miss G has complained about six transactions she made from her account in November 2021. She says these were made at a time when she was experiencing coercive control from her ex-partner, and so the payments were made under duress and should not be considered as authorised. She is also unhappy Halifax didn’t recognise such large payments - which were unusual for her account - being sent to cryptocurrency platforms and to her ex-partner. Miss G says Halifax were aware of her divorce at this time but did not question why she was making these payments to her ex-partner. Miss G says Halifax should refund the six transactions in dispute. Halifax considered the complaint and while it empathised with Miss G’s situation, said that that the transactions were authorised, and it didn’t agree to refund them. But it felt that it could’ve done better when initially handling Miss G’s concerns, and for the delay in getting her an answer it paid her £500 compensation. Miss G wasn’t happy with the outcome Halifax offered and so she brought her complaint to our Service. An investigator completed an independent review of this complaint in full. He considered Miss G’s circumstances at the time and whether it would be fair to say that Halifax should’ve been aware of what was happening and prevented her loss. But ultimately, he felt that there was no way for Halifax to have known, and had it asked questions at the time it’s likely Miss G would’ve still gone ahead with the payments if she was under constant threat. So, he didn’t uphold this compliant. Miss G wasn’t happy with this outcome, so 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. Before I set out my thoughts, I want to say that I am sorry to have learnt about Miss G’s distressing situation. I can only try to imagine what she has been through, but I am glad to see she is no longer suffering in the same way. I also wanted to state that I have summarised this complaint briefly and, in less detail, than has been provided. I’ve focused on what I think is the heart of the matter. Please rest assured that while I may not comment on every point raised, I have considered it. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to

-- 1 of 3 --

reach what I think is the right outcome. Our rules allow me to do this and reflect the fact that we are an informal service and a free alternative for consumers to the courts. Miss G told us about her situation at the time these payments were made. In summary, she says her divorce had been finalised earlier in the year, but she had still been under the control of her abusive ex-parter at the time. Miss G says he pressured her into making these payments to him and to a cryptocurrency investment. I’ve considered what Miss G has said here alongside the Payment Services Regulations (PSR 2017) relevant at the time. These regulations state that every transaction needs to be authenticated and consented to in order to be deemed authorised. Authentication relates to the actual act of making the payment and the form this takes. Miss G hasn’t disputed making these payments herself, and Halifax provided evidence that they were made via her online banking, so there is no question of authentication which I need to consider. The question here is about consent. Miss G argues that she didn’t give valid consent as this was done under duress. It’s important to understand that the consent referred to in the PSR 2017 isn’t the same as ‘consent’ in other areas of law. When a consumer gives a payment order the underlying relationship between them and whoever they’re paying is irrelevant to whether the payment is authorised. This means that if a payee has been coerced into making a payment or deceived about the purpose or amount of a payment, that doesn’t usually make the payment transaction unauthorised. I appreciate everything Miss G has told us, and I can understand it must have been difficult to provide the details she has. Miss G has referenced other cases of abuse where we have made a different finding in favour of the customer. However, each case is considered on it’s own merits and I can’t compare cases to say why different findings were made. In this case Miss G was no longer living with her ex-partner, and her accounts were in her name only at the time. While I am not doubting what Miss G has said about how she felt at the time, there is no police report or notes from the business to show that Halifax was aware of Miss G’s ongoing situation after the divorce. So, I don’t think it would be fair for me to ask Halifax to treat these payments as unauthorised and refund them to Miss G. Miss G also says she feels Halifax ought to have flagged the payments as suspicious and done more to protect her before processing them as instructed. As explored by the investigator, even if Halifax had reached out at the time, based on what Miss G has said she was still under the threat of her ex-partner, and I don’t think any intervention by Halifax would’ve changed her decision to make the payment at that time. Miss G has explained that she felt unsafe and couldn’t tell anyone what was happening, so I think she would’ve concealed what was happening to Halifax as well. I’ve seen that in the response to the investigator’s outcome Miss G said she felt that Halifax failed to show any empathy towards her. And she referenced her call with Halifax as being confusing and distressing. She also said the call caused her further emotional harm and so the compensation offered is not adequate. Halifax has provided two calls it had with her during this complaint, and I have listened to both. On both occasions I felt that the call handler had been considerate and sensitive around her circumstances. It does sound like Miss G was feeling distressed talking about the situation, and Halifax did ask a lot of questions. But I am satisfied that Halifax only asked questions relevant to the complaint it was investigating. I think both Halifax call handlers showed Miss G empathy, and I don’t think they said anything that would warrant a payment of further compensation. I know this outcome will come as a disappointment to Miss G but based on everything I’ve seen I don’t think it would be fair to ask Halifax to refund the payments Miss G made out of her account to third parties. So, I am not upholding this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision I am not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss G to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Sienna Mahboobani Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --