FOS decisions / Fx Remittance
Fx Remittance
Financial Ombudsman Service final decisions, reproduced verbatim from the FOS published decisions register.
Decisions
11
Upheld
6
Not upheld
5
Avg redress
£2,669
Upheld complaints (6)
Starling Bank Limited
DRN-6260602A bank must provide an effective warning tailored to the specific scam risk before relying on the CRM Code exception to deny reimbursement to an APP scam victim.
UpheldRedress £10,000Mar 2026HSBC UK Bank
DRN-6266207Firms must provide effective support to customers to enable proper use of banking products and services, and should recognise when standard processes are failing and explore alternative solutions.
UpheldRedress £100Feb 2026Clydesdale Bank
DRN-6288615A bank must treat customers fairly when they face financial difficulties, but is entitled to apply contractual interest charges and report defaults to credit reference agencies when account terms are breached, even where the customer claims
UpheldFeb 2026Decision DRN-6191799
A firm must complete reasonable identity verification before processing pension encashment requests, but must not impose unnecessarily burdensome requirements that cause undue delay or financial hardship.
UpheldDecision DRN-6046407
A financial institution must handle fraud cases promptly and not impose unreasonable procedural barriers that prevent a victim from accessing their legitimate funds and resolving fraudulent activity.
UpheldRedress £500Decision DRN-5970574
A financial institution must clearly explain to customers why their requests have not been processed and the specific requirements that need to be met.
UpheldRedress £75
Not-upheld complaints (5)
Decision DRN-6241552
Under the CRM Code, a bank may not reimburse an authorised push payment loss if the consumer failed to take reasonable care, even if the bank should have provided additional intervention.
Not upheldJ.P. Morgan Europe Limited
DRN-6269384A consumer making authorized payment transactions is generally responsible for the loss unless they can demonstrate the payment was made without their consent or under circumstances that would trigger an obligation for the payment service p
Not upheldDecision DRN-6136726
Banks must make proportionate interventions to protect against fraud, but are only liable if the intervention would have prevented the loss.
Not upheldLloyds Bank PLC
DRN-5991472Authorized payments are the customer's liability in the first instance under the Payment Services Regulations, and banks must balance fraud prevention with minimal disruption to legitimate transactions.
Not upheldLloyds Bank PLC
DRN-6042911A bank must process authorised payments but may take proportionate additional steps to protect customers from fraud; however, liability requires both that intervention should have occurred and that it would have prevented the loss (causatio
Not upheld