UK ombudsman highlights banks’ role in protecting against gambling harm

In a high‑profile decision that has captured public attention and raised important questions about the role of banks in preventing gambling harm, the United Kingdom’s Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has issued a finding against the digital banking firm Revolut Ltd in relation to the support it provided to a customer struggling with gambling addiction. The case has triggered a wider debate in the financial services sector about the adequacy of existing safeguards for vulnerable customers, the responsibilities of banks under regulatory standards and how financial institutions should respond when customers disclose personal difficulties related to addiction.

Background to the ombudsman’s decision

The Financial Ombudsman Service is an independent statutory body established to resolve disputes between consumers and financial service firms in the UK. The service deals with complaints from customers of banks, building societies, insurance companies, investment firms and other financial services providers that are authorised by the UK regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). It considers complaints impartially and, where necessary, can order firms to compensate customers if it finds that they have acted unfairly or inadequately in handling a complaint.

In this instance, the complaint was brought by a customer identified only by the pseudonym Mr H in the ombudsman’s published decision. According to the information submitted to the FOS, Mr H informed Revolut in May 2025 that he was struggling with gambling addiction and that he was using his banking account to purchase cryptocurrency and convert it for use in gambling activity. He expressed that this pattern of use was harmful to his wellbeing and that he wanted stronger support than what he had been able to achieve through the bank’s standard protective measures.

How the bank responded

Revolut, like many modern financial technology firms and traditional banks, offers customers the option to activate a gambling block on their accounts. This feature allows customers to block card payments identified as gambling transactions in order to prevent further exposure to gambling operators. The firm also provides the option to hide access to its own cryptocurrency features within the app.

In response to Mr H’s request, Revolut advised him to use the gambling block tool and showed him how to hide the cryptocurrency feature from his app dashboard. However, according to the ombudsman’s review, these measures did not meet the customer’s expressed needs because they could be reversed easily by the user and did not prevent the conversion of funds into cryptocurrency that could then be used to access gambling services. Revolut also directed Mr H to different internal teams, including its cryptocurrency support group, which were unable to offer a permanent solution or closure of the account.

Mr H explicitly asked for the irreversible closure of his account or the removal of the cryptocurrency conversion capability that was facilitating his gambling behaviour. The ombudsman noted that although Revolut had the technical ability to close the account or permanently restrict features, it did not take these actions when first asked. Effective support for the customer was only put in place two months later in July 2025, after the complaint had been escalated through the company’s complaints process and then referred to the FOS.

Ombudsman’s findings and compensation award

After reviewing the evidence and correspondence between Mr H and Revolut, the Financial Ombudsman Service found that the bank’s responses were inadequate and did not fully reflect the seriousness of the customer’s vulnerability. In its final decision, the ombudsman noted that Mr H had made it clear that the tools provided were insufficient to meet his needs and that Revolut had failed to listen to the customer and fully understand his situation.

The ombudsman observed that the assistance offered by Revolut was limited to technical guidance about existing features that Mr H already knew about and had found ineffective. The complaint investigation concluded that the customer was left without meaningful help for a prolonged period while being passed between different teams that were unable to address the substantive request.

As a result of the findings, the FOS upheld the complaint and ordered Revolut to pay Mr H compensation of £400. The ombudsman also issued commentary aimed at encouraging other customers to come forward if they believed that their financial service provider could have done more to protect them from gambling related harm. In a statement summarising the FOS position, the service emphasised that its role is to consider each case individually and that it expects firms to act quickly and fairly when shortcomings are identified.

Regulatory context and bank responsibilities

The decision has broader implications for financial firms operating in the UK. Banks and payment service providers are required to meet regulatory obligations under the Financial Conduct Authority’s Consumer Duty rules. These regulations require firms to design processes and products that prevent foreseeable harm to customers, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances and to take steps to support customers where harm is identified or reasonably foreseeable.

Under FCA guidance, banks should consider vulnerability as a factor in product design and customer interaction. This includes providing options that help customers manage risks such as problem gambling and financial distress. Tools like gambling blocks are one example of such measures, but the FOS case highlights questions about whether optional tools are sufficient when a customer explicitly requests more permanent safeguards.

The FCA requires that firms make reasonable adjustments where necessary to support vulnerable customers. This can include tailored communication, specialist support teams and in some cases, limitations on account access when requested. However, the specific requirements for identifying and acting on signs of gambling addiction remain an evolving area of regulatory interpretation and industry practice. The FOS ruling brings this issue to the forefront of the discussion among regulators, firms and consumer advocates.

Industry practices and protections

Banks and fintech companies in the UK have increasingly introduced safeguards to help customers manage gambling related spending. Traditional high‑street banks and digital challengers such as Monzo Bank Ltd and Starling Bank were among the first to launch gambling block tools that prevent card payments to gambling merchants. Over time, other institutions adopted similar features designed to support customers who wish to limit access to gambling services.

These tools typically work by identifying merchant category codes associated with gambling transactions and blocking those payments from being processed. While this approach has provided a degree of protection for many customers, it has limitations, particularly when customers use alternative payment methods such as bank transfers, third‑party payment processors or cryptocurrency.

In the case of Mr H, he was converting funds into cryptocurrency using his banking account and then using that digital currency to access gambling services, many of which operate outside of regulated UK gambling markets. Because UK‑licensed gambling operators are not permitted to accept cryptocurrency as a payment method, it is likely that his activity took place with overseas or unregulated platforms. This raises complex questions about how financial institutions can prevent harm when customers use instruments outside traditional payment rails.

Broader debate on gambling, crypto and bank obligations

The intersection of gambling addiction, cryptocurrency use and financial services oversight forms an area of growing concern among policy makers and regulators. Cryptocurrency transactions offer a level of autonomy and decentralised control that can make it harder for banks to monitor and intervene effectively when customers exhibit harmful patterns of behaviour. This contrasts with traditional card payments which can be more easily identified and blocked by merchant categories.

Given that regulated UK gambling operators are prohibited from accepting cryptocurrency for gambling, the use of digital assets in gambling suggests that customers may be engaging with unregulated or overseas platforms where protections such as self‑exclusion schemes do not apply. Problem gambling itself is recognised as contributing to financial hardship, significant distress and negative impacts on mental health and relationships.

Industry observers and consumer advocates are now calling on financial institutions to consider enhanced safeguards that go beyond optional blocks. Suggestions include permanent restrictions on certain features at the customer’s request, proactive monitoring of transaction patterns indicative of gambling harm, improved referral pathways to specialist support and clearer processes for closing accounts when appropriate. These proposals are subject to debate, with banks noting that they must balance customer autonomy with regulatory compliance and operational limitations.

What the ombudsman’s statement means for customers

In concluding its decision, the Financial Ombudsman Service specifically encouraged individuals who believe their financial services provider did not do enough to protect them from the harmful effects of gambling to contact the ombudsman. The service underlines that its process is free of charge, independent and designed to ensure that complaints are thoroughly investigated, evidence is weighed carefully and decisions are made based on fairness and regulatory standards.

According to the FOS, if it finds that a firm has treated a customer unfairly, it expects that firm to promptly take corrective action and compensate the customer where appropriate. This statement reinforces the role of alternative dispute resolution in holding financial institutions accountable for their treatment of vulnerable customers and for addressing systemic issues within their products and services.

Conclusion

The recent ruling involving Revolut and the Financial Ombudsman Service has reignited discussion about the responsibilities of banks and fintech firms in protecting vulnerable customers from gambling related harms. While tools such as gambling blocks represent an important step forward in supporting customers who wish to limit their exposure to gambling, the case of Mr H illustrates that optional features may not always be sufficient when customers explicitly request more permanent measures.

The decision highlights the need for continued dialogue between regulators, financial institutions and consumer advocates to ensure that protections evolve in line with emerging risks, including the increasing use of cryptocurrency for gambling activities. Ultimately, the balance between customer autonomy, regulatory compliance and safeguarding vulnerable individuals remains a central challenge for the UK financial services sector.

FAQs

What is the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK?
The Financial Ombudsman Service is an independent body that resolves disputes between consumers and financial services firms in the UK free of charge and can order firms to compensate customers if it finds unfair treatment.

What did the ombudsman find in the Revolut case?
The ombudsman found that Revolut did not provide adequate support to a customer who disclosed a gambling addiction and that the tools offered were insufficient to meet his needs.

Why was £400 in compensation awarded?
The compensation was awarded because the ombudsman concluded that Revolut’s response to the customer’s request for stronger safeguards was inadequate.

What is a gambling block feature in banking apps?
A gambling block feature allows customers to prevent certain transactions identified as gambling payments from being processed through their account. It is designed to help individuals limit access to gambling services.

Can a bank permanently close a customer’s account at the customer’s request?
Yes, banks can close an account at a customer’s request but policies vary by institution and closing an account may have other consequences that a customer should consider carefully.

How does cryptocurrency factor into gambling harm protections?
Cryptocurrency can be used outside traditional payment channels making it harder for banks’ gambling blocks to prevent its conversion and use for gambling activities.

Are UK licensed gambling operators permitted to accept cryptocurrency?
UK licensed gambling operators are generally not permitted to accept cryptocurrency for gambling, meaning such activity may involve unregulated or overseas platforms.

What should a customer do if they believe their bank did not protect them from gambling harm?
Customers can raise a complaint with their bank first and if they are not satisfied with the outcome they can refer their case to the Financial Ombudsman Service for independent review.

What obligations do banks have under UK regulations to protect vulnerable customers?
Under the Financial Conduct Authority’s Consumer Duty, banks are expected to design processes and products that prevent foreseeable harm to customers, especially those in vulnerable circumstances.

Does this ruling mean banking protections will change?
The ruling highlights areas for improvement and may influence industry practices and regulatory expectations, but formal changes in regulations would be determined by the relevant authorities.