$19,400 reimbursed after a bank blamed the customer for an impersonation scam

Our client received a telephone call displaying her bank's genuine published number. The caller knew her recent transaction history and told her the account had been compromised and her balance needed moving to a safe account while the bank investigated.

Over ninety minutes she made four transfers totalling $19,400. She had been widowed seven weeks earlier and was managing the household finances alone for the first time in forty years.

Her bank declined reimbursement, concluding she had acted with gross negligence by ignoring an on-screen warning. The final response letter ran to two paragraphs and did not mention her circumstances, because nobody had asked about them.

We addressed the refusal on three fronts.

First, the gross negligence standard. It requires significantly more than carelessness — a serious disregard for an obvious risk. Being deceived by a caller who has spoofed the bank's own number and knows your transaction history is not a disregard of an obvious risk; it is the intended effect of a well-resourced deception.

Second, the warning. The on-screen message was a generic caution about transferring money to people you do not know. Our client believed she was transferring to her own bank. A warning that does not address the actual scam carries far less weight than firms assume when they rely on it.

Third, vulnerability. Recent bereavement sits squarely within the regulator's description of a life event affecting someone's capacity to make financial decisions under pressure. The bank had not asked, had not identified it, and had applied its exceptions without considering whether it was entitled to.

We obtained a letter from her GP, the death certificate, and the call records confirming the spoofed number.

We submitted a complaint setting out each point with supporting evidence and required a substantive response within the eight-week window. The bank maintained its refusal in a further letter that largely repeated the original wording.

We referred the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service with a full submission. Nineteen weeks later the bank settled ahead of a formal determination: the full $19,400 reimbursed, $2,180 in interest for the period she had been without the money, and $750 for distress and inconvenience.

The bank also said it had reviewed its vulnerability identification process for these claims. We have no way to verify what changed and would not claim credit for it.