UK ruling sparks debate on banks’ role in tackling gambling harm

The Financial Ombudsman Service has suggested that gambling blocks are not enough.

UK.- The UK Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has reignited debate over what lengths banks should go to in order to protect vulnerable customers. It’s suggested that banks’ gambling block tools are inadequate because they can easily be reversed and don’t cover crypto.

In a complaint to the FOS, a customer said he had repeatedly asked the digital bank Revolut to close his account or restrict access to cryptocurrency services due to a gambling addiction. Revolut suggested the customer use its gambling block tool and noted an option to hide the bank’s own crypto features, but the ombudsman said this was not enough.

Awarding the customer £400 in compensation, the FOS said the customer, referred to as Mr H, had made it clear that he needed stronger support. However, Revolut had repeatedly redirected him to teams unable to provide meaningful help.

Mr H first contacted the bank on May 27 2025, but effective support was only provided two months later on July 24, after the case was escalated. The ombudsman questioned why Revolut did not close the account despite having the ability to do so.

“Instead of listening to Mr H and trying to get a full understanding of what the issue was and looking at all the options available to him, Mr H – an extremely vulnerable individual – was given unhelpful advice around options Mr H was already aware of and passed around to teams that couldn’t help,” the FOS found.

The FOS also encouraged other banking customers to make contact if they had faced a similar situation. “People should contact our service if they feel a financial provider could have done more to protect them from the harmful effects of gambling.” it said. “We look at each case on its own individual merits. Our service is free, easy to use and impartial – if we find someone has been treated unfairly, we expect firms to act promptly and put things right for the consumer.”

Digital banks Monzo and Starling Bank were among the first to introduce gambling blocks for UK banking customers, preventing card payments to gambling operators. Most major high-street banks have introduced similar or enhanced protections at the start of the decade.

However, since Mr H was gambling via cryptocurrency, Revolut’s block did not prevent the transactions. Under current regulations, British-licensed operators cannot accept cryptocurrency for gambling.

The ombudsman also noted that customers can disable gambling blocks as easily as they can enable them, suggesting that banks should offer more permanent measures for customers that request them.

Under the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Consumer Duty regulations, financial services companies must design processes that prevent foreseeable harm. However, the ruling raises questions over how that should be interpreted, what banks can do to intervene and whether they have the responsibility to look for warning signs of gambling harm.