Upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) Scam - Reimbursement under CRM Code complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6014783 of 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00. Authorised Push Payment (APP) Scam - Reimbursement under CRM Code complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6014783 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HSBC UK Bank Plc |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Authorised Push Payment (APP) Scam - Reimbursement under CRM Code |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | HSBC UK Bank Plc must refund Ms C £12,900 (£13,500 investment minus £600 returns received) plus 8% simple interest calculated from the date HSBC declined the claim or 15 days after the claim was first made, whichever is earlier. HSBC is entitled to take an assignment of rights to all future distributions Ms C may receive from other recovery processes, provided it first provides a draft assignment to Ms C for her consideration and agreement. |
Summary
Ms C invested £13,500 in company C, which claimed to operate a rent-to-rent property investment scheme for social housing. She received only £600 in returns and later discovered the investment was a scam. HSBC initially refused to reimburse her under the CRM Code, placing her claim on hold pending police investigation. The ombudsman found overwhelming evidence that C was operating a Ponzi scheme, with funds misused for personal purposes rather than property development, and that Ms C had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was legitimate. The ombudsman rejected HSBC's reliance on the ongoing police investigation, finding sufficient evidence already available to determine the complaint fairly and quickly. HSBC was ordered to refund Ms C £12,900 plus 8% simple interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman concluded that Ms C was the victim of an APP scam as defined by the CRM Code because company C obtained funds through dishonest deception, using the funds for purposes materially different from those Ms C believed. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that C was operating a Ponzi scheme, with funds not used for the stated property investment purposes. The ombudsman rejected HSBC's reliance on the ongoing police investigation, finding that sufficient evidence was already available to reach a fair decision and that delaying resolution would not be appropriate given the FOS's purpose to resolve complaints quickly. No exceptions to reimbursement applied because HSBC gave no effective warning and Ms C had a reasonable basis for believing C offered a genuine investment opportunity.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HSBC UK Bank Plc, all decisions | 7,532 | 23% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website