Brent Shrine Credit Union Limited · DRN-6196430

THE COMPLAINT Mrs C’s complaint is about Brent Shrine Credit Union Limited, referred to in this decision as “Community Bank”. Mrs C is represented in this matter. However, where appropriate, I will refer to Mrs C solely in this decision for ease of reading. WHAT HAPPENED The circumstances of this complaint are well known to all parties concerned, so I will not repeat them again here in detail. However, I will provide an overview. Mrs C says she was the victim of an investment scam whereby scammers coerced her into taking out a £10,000 loan with Community Bank in April 2025 (the “Loan”). Mrs C received the proceeds of the Loan, which were then lost to the scam. Mrs C disputed this with Community Bank and asked for the Loan to be written off in light of the circumstances in which it was taken out. When Community Bank declined, Mrs C submitted a complaint and subsequently referred it to our Service. One of our investigators considered the complaint and did not uphold it. As Mrs C did not accept the investigator’s findings, this matter has now been passed to me to make a decision. 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 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 • Mrs C told Community Bank, amongst other things, “As part of what I believed

-- 1 of 3 --

was a legitimate investment, they [the scammers] convinced me to apply for a loan … From that point onward, they were the ones completing loan applications on my behalf.” Mrs C told this Service she took out the Loan, “... under coercion by the scammers.” • By Mrs C’s own testimony, she accepts she consented to the scammers taking out the Loan. While I acknowledge Mrs C says she did so under coercion as part of a sophisticated scam in which she was controlled and deceived – what is a key issue in this case is what Community Bank knew at the time the Loan was applied for. • I have not seen anything that indicates Community Bank knew or ought to have known about Mrs C’s circumstances – specifically that she was being coerced – when the Loan was applied for. • Mrs C has raised concerns about how the Loan agreement was signed. That is, “… whether this acceptance [of electronic signatures] can reliably be attributed to [Mrs C] personally, in the context of a remote-access scam where fraudsters were guiding and acting for her.” I am satisfied that Community Bank acted appropriately in accepting the electronic signature, which is standard practice. Further, as I have already stated, when the Loan was applied for, Community Bank had no reason to suspect anything untoward. • Mrs C has raised concerns about the investigator’s view that the reference to ‘The Manager’ in the Loan agreement was “more than likely” pre-populated. She argues that, in a case involving an acknowledged scam victim who disputes personally signing, assumptions should not replace documentary proof. I do not accept this argument. The investigator’s conclusion was reasonable, and in any event, whether this field was pre-populated has no bearing on Mrs C’s liability for the Loan. • Mrs C says further evidence should be obtained, such as IP logs and device or verification data. I do not consider this necessary. I am satisfied I have sufficient evidence to reach a fair and reasonable decision in this matter. • Mrs C says she is experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the Loan. This is something she should raise directly with Community Bank. Taking all the above points into account, I am satisfied it is fair and reasonable for Community Bank to hold Mrs C liable for the Loan if it wishes. It follows that I will not be directing it to do anything further. In my judgment, this 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 do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs C to accept or

-- 2 of 3 --

reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Tony Massiah Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --