UK ombudsman orders Santander to refund gambling losses linked to offshore sites despite payment blocks

The UK Financial Ombudsman Service has ordered Santander to refund gambling losses incurred by a customer identified only as Mr R. He had received £25,000 from the sale of a house and spent most of it on gambling, even though he had gambling blocks set up with the bank.

No fixed refund amount has been set. Santander must return all identifiable gambling losses, minus any winnings, from 15 August to 17 September 2025. It must also add 8% interest to each gambling transaction in that period and pay £500 for distress and inconvenience. Around £16,000 spent before 15 August is excluded. That was the date Mr R told the bank he had a severe gambling addiction. He took his complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 September.

The Ombudsman found that before the disclosure there was no basis for Santander to intervene, and that the customer was responsible for setting his own restrictions until then. Santander had argued that transacting with offshore platforms was Mr R's own decision, but the Ombudsman did not accept that it was not liable for the later period.

The case exposes a limit of gambling payment blocks. Every major UK bank offers one, but the blocks apply to businesses licensed and regulated by the Gambling Commission. All of the money Mr R gambled after the sale was paid to offshore companies. He said he was still able to gamble even after Santander added an international block on gambling transactions.

The decision follows Gambling Commission data suggesting that people with a Problem Gambling Severity Index score of eight or more are the most likely to gamble on offshore platforms. Tackling payments is seen as a key way to curb the illegal market, and the government's Illegal Gambling Taskforce, set up earlier this year, is examining the issue.

Gambling blocks were first introduced by Starling and Monzo in 2018, and Santander has offered its own since mid-2019. The Gambling Commission and GambleAware encouraged banks to adopt them. Researchers have urged the Financial Conduct Authority to address inconsistencies between banks, noting that some blocks could initially be switched off immediately. The FCA has backed blocks as good practice but has not endorsed calls for a universal block with a minimum 48-hour cooling-off period. No further FCA guidance on the subject has been published since 2022.

The case also raises the question of how individual responsibility fits alongside the duties of banks and regulators in addressing gambling harm.