Triodos Bank UK Limited · DRN-6230627

The complaint Mr W complains that Triodos Bank UK Limited (Triodos) is refusing to refund him the amount he lost as the result of a scam. Mr W is being represented by a third party. To keep things simple, I will refer to Mr W throughout my decision. What happened The background of this complaint is well known to all parties, so I won’t repeat what happened in detail. In summary, Mr W has told us that he was contacted by a company I will call “X”, X explained that a small investment Mr W had made years before was now worth substantially more. Mr W carried out online searches on X and could see it was a legitimate company, X also appeared to have specific knowledge of Mr W’s previous investment which made it appear even more legitimate. Mr W was advised that to access the funds he would need to make transfers to the wallet the funds were being held in first. As part of the process Mr W was required to open an account with Triodos as well as cryptocurrency exchanges. Each time Mr W made a payment X would give him another reason why a further payment was needed. Eventually Mr W became suspicious and reached out to the real company via email. It was then confirmed that Mr W had fallen victim to a scam. Mr W has disputed the following payments made from his Triodos account: Payment Date Payee Payment Method Amount 1 30 June 2025 Kraken Transfer £50.00 2 4 July 2025 Coinbase Transfer £10,000.00 3 10 July 2025 Coinbase Transfer £20,000.00 29 July 2025 Coinbase Transfer declined £20,000.00 Our Investigator considered Mr W’s complaint and didn’t think it should be upheld. Mr W disagreed, so this complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. It has not been disputed that Mr W has fallen victim to a cruel scam. The evidence provided by both Mr W and Triodos sets out what happened. What is in dispute is whether Triodos should refund the money Mr W lost due to the scam.

-- 1 of 3 --

Recovering the payments Mr W made Mr W made the disputed payments via transfer. When payments are made by transfer Triodos has limited options available to it to seek recovery. In any event the payments Mr W made in relation to the scam were made to a cryptocurrency exchange in exchange for cryptocurrency. As Mr W remained in control of his funds after each payment was made, and it took further steps for the funds to end up in the hands of the scammer, any attempt to recover the payments would have no chance of success. Should Triodos have reasonably prevented the payments Mr W made? It has been accepted that Mr W authorised the payments that were made from his account with Triodos, albeit on X’s instruction. So, the starting point here is that Mr W is responsible. However, banks and other Payment Services Providers (PSPs) do have a duty to protect against the risk of financial loss due to fraud and/or to undertake due diligence on large transactions to guard against money laundering. The question here is whether Triodos should have been aware of the scam and intervened when the payments were being made. And if it had intervened, would it have been able to prevent the scam taking place. The first payment Mr W has disputed was for a low value. Considering the value of the payment I wouldn’t have expected Triodos to have had concerns that would have prompted it to intervene. However, the remaining payments Mr W made in relation to the scam were for significant values and most were being made to a known cryptocurrency exchange (payments that have higher associated risk). Given the risk associated with these payments I think Triodos should have had concerns that Mr W could have been at risk of financial harm and it should have intervened. I think that an appropriate intervention to the risk associated with the remaining payments presented would have been for Triodos to have discussed the payments with Mr W with a view of understanding what had led to them being made, and then to have provided an appropriate warning based on the information Mr W provided to it. I can see that Triodos did intervene on multiple occasions. When Mr W made the payments, multiple calls took place and Mr W made Triodos aware of the payments by email. Mr W confirmed he was selling property and using some of the funds to invest himself and that he was not speaking to any third party. During the calls Mr W confirmed he was making an investment himself having carried out his own online research, it was his own idea and there was no third-party involvement. Triodos also intervened when Mr W attempted to make a further payment from his account on 29 July 2025 and requested copies of supporting documents to help it understand the background to the payment he was making. Unhappy with the information provided this payment was declined. Prior to making the payments from his Triodos account Mr W also attempted to make payments from another account he held with another provider. The other provider Intervened and several calls took place. Mr W was open with the other provider and confirmed he had been making the payments

-- 2 of 3 --

having been guided by X using remote access software to release funds. The other provider immediately warned Mr W that he had fallen victim to a scam. The other provider explained the same scenario to Mr W and how the scam worked and gave him clear warnings not to engage with X as he was experiencing a very specific scam. Mr W was also sent some guidance on the specific scam he was experiencing. Despite receiving very clear warnings from his other account provider Mr W still opened an account with Triodos and made further substantial payments in relation to the scam giving incorrect information about what he was doing. Overall, I think it’s clear that Mr W was under the spell of the scammer and was willing to give false information and ignore clear warnings to make payments towards the scam, even when this meant using different accounts to do so. I don’t have enough to say that even if Triodos had intervened further, that Mr W would have provided more accurate information, or taken notice of any warnings it may have provided. So, I don’t think Triodos missed an opportunity to prevent the scam, and it is not responsible for Mr W’s loss. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Terry Woodham Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --