Not upheld: authorised push payment (APP) scam claim / refund denial complaint against TSB Bank plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs W complained that TSB refused to reimburse her £460 for payments made to a street vendor (R) for what she believed were counterfeit brand A products (phone, watches, air pods) intended as Christmas gifts. TSB classified the matter as a civil dispute rather than an authorised push payment (APP) scam. The ombudsman upheld TSB's decision, finding that although Mrs W received goods she now believes are fake, the transaction does not meet the APP scam definition because she paid the intended recipient and received items in return. Serial number verification of one item indicated it was genuine, and there was insufficient evidence to prove R intended to defraud Mrs W rather than simply sell defective or misrepresented goods, which constitutes a quality complaint excluded from APP scam protection.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the APP Scam Reimbursement Rules definition, which requires that the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose intended. Mrs W paid R (the intended recipient) for goods and received items in return. The key question was whether R accepted payment with no intention of fulfilling obligations. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to conclude R intended to defraud Mrs W. The serial number verification of one item indicated it was genuine. The lack of documentation, the street transaction context, and the absence of clear evidence that R knew the items were not as described meant the situation more likely constituted a civil dispute about goods quality rather than fraud. The ombudsman noted that quality complaints and defective goods are specifically excluded from the APP scam definition.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website