Not upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam claim / irresponsible lending not applicable complaint against Bank of Scotland plc, trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs N paid a roofer (J) £4,000 for roof work in December 2024, but claims the work was defective and J subsequently disappeared claiming liquidation. Mrs N requested Halifax refund the payments, believing she was victim of a scam. Halifax declined, classifying it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Halifax's decision, finding that while J's behaviour was unprofessional (false address, poor workmanship), the evidence did not establish fraud as the most probable explanation. J attended the property, performed work, and continued communicating with Mrs N—factors inconsistent with typical scams. The matter was determined to be a private civil dispute regarding service quality rather than an Authorised Push Payment scam covered by the Reimbursement Rules.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) to determine whether fraud occurred. While J's behaviour was unprofessional (non-existent address, VAT registration claims, poor work quality), this does not automatically constitute fraud. The ombudsman found that Mrs N paid the intended recipient (J's partner), the purpose of payment (roofing work) was not misrepresented as J did attend and perform work, and J continued communicating with Mrs N after payment—all factors inconsistent with typical scams. The evidence did not meet the high threshold required to conclude fraud was more probable than not. The matter was therefore classified as a civil dispute regarding service quality rather than an APP scam.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website