The UK’s Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled that gambling block options offered by banks are not sufficient to prevent gambling harm, following a recent consumer complaint.

The ruling has reignited debates over where the line of responsibility lies in the relationship between consumer-facing financial organisations and those using their services.

“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,” reported Focus Gaming News.

“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.” 

In its report the FOS said: “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 crypto divide

It is ironic that the banking ombudsman, which seems to have no opinion on the banks crippling their customers with record low savings rates and record high interest rates, has an opinion on cryptocurrency services when it comes to gambling and personal bank accounts. Perhaps it should have a chat with the Gambling Commission which has launched an inquiry into  how to bring cryptocurrency into the gambling field of play.

Does disjointed thinking literally run amok through the corridors of every single regulatory institution?