Lloyds Bank PLC · DRN-6063898

The complaint Mr Y complains Lloyds Bank PLC (“Lloyds”) did not reimburse the funds he lost to a scam. Mr Y has appointed a professional representative who has brought this complaint on his behalf. However, for ease, I will simply refer to “Mr Y” throughout my decision, even when referring to submissions made by his representative. What happened The facts of this case are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them in detail here. In short, Mr Y says he made over £100,000 worth of payments to a scammer between 26 March 2022 and 6 June 2023, via transfers from his Lloyds account to his cryptocurrency account and then on to the scammer. He says he found this investment opportunity via Instagram and began speaking to someone he believed was providing legitimate investment advice. He was given access to an online portal to track his investments, and he believed he was making a good profit. However, when he tried to withdraw the funds and was unable to do so, he realised he had been scammed. Mr Y then complained to Lloyds. Lloyds considered Mr Y’s complaint and decided to refund Mr Y £22,480.38 worth of payments he made. However, it didn’t refund Mr Y in full as it felt that he ought to have done more research on the investment opportunity before sending so much money to an unknown third party. Unhappy with the outcome reached by Lloyds, Mr Y brought his complaint to our service. Our investigator carried out an independent review of all the information and evidence provided but decided not to uphold this complaint on the basis that she wasn’t persuaded Mr Y lost all the funds claimed to a scam. While she appreciated that some evidence had been supplied of the conversation between Mr Y and a third party pertaining to be an investment broker, the conversation shown all took place after the transactions were sent. So, there was no discussion about the amounts requested and the account details. Or was there any discussion about what Mr Y thought he would be getting for this money. Following the initial assessment, Mr Y provided evidence of some Coinbase statements and transaction history reports, and some of the same for Moonpay. However the investigator felt that this still didn’t prove that Mr Y had lost the funds he was claiming to an unknown scammer. Mr Y 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 acknowledge 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

-- 1 of 2 --

considered it. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to 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. Before I can consider Mr Y’s complaint as a scam I must be persuaded that a scam has taken place and that the payments Mr Y has disputed have resulted in a loss because of such a scam. It is Mr Y’s responsibility to provide appropriate evidence to support his version of events and the losses he says he has incurred. Having considered all the evidence in detail, I agree with the investigator’s view that there is not enough evidence to show the funds Mr Y is claiming for were lost as a result of this investment scam. This is not to suggest I think he has misled our service or the bank, but I can only base my outcome on the evidence provided on file and in this case, it is not sufficient to evidence the scam. I’ll explain why. Mr Y says he discovered this investment opportunity on Instagram, and he has provided some of the chat history between him and the scammer. However, having reviewed these chats I can only see messages sent by Mr Y. I appreciate Mr Y’s point, that these have all been deleted by the scammer and he has no way of getting them back, but without the other half of the conversation I don’t know what the scammer was asking of Mr Y. I also note that all the conversations I have are from after all the transactions were made. This therefore does not help me to understand what his loss is or how the payments he made to his cryptocurrency wallet connect to the scammer. I would normally expect to see some instructions from the scammers to Mr Y himself on where to make the payment to or promising returns or explaining the investment itself in some way. Without this, it is difficult to connect the payments he made to a cryptocurrency wallet to a specific investment scam. I’ve also seen some statements and transaction history showing that Mr Y purchased cryptocurrencies, however there is no way for me to connect the money that was used to buy cryptocurrencies to a loss to the scammer. There is no evidence of any wallet addresses being provided to Mr Y, or any details on where he was sending this money. I have seen some website and login information, which I understand to be the login information for the online portal, but again I haven’t seen any evidence of what the portal showed at the time that Mr Y says he believed to be crediting funds into this account. I am therefore still of the opinion that the evidence provided to me does not sufficiently evidence the loss Mr Y has set out in his complaint. And so, it follows that I can’t ask Lloyds to reimburse any money for failing to protect him from a scam. IMy final decision I am not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr Y to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Sienna Mahboobani Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --