Not upheld: APP scam reimbursement claim / Payment made under duress complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I complained that NatWest should reimburse a £10,000 payment he made to company M on 17 April 2025 after associates of M threatened him and his family with violence at a wedding and family home. Mr I argued the payment was made under duress and should be reimbursed under APP scam reimbursement rules. The ombudsman found the payment was authorised under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 despite the duress, as consent is defined formally without reference to coercion. The ombudsman also concluded the payment did not constitute an APP scam under the Reimbursement Rules due to insufficient evidence (no hire agreement, collision evidence, or damage valuation) and because Mr I was aware he was paying to avoid immediate harm, not deceived about the payment's purpose. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Mr I made the payment under duress, the Payment Services Regulations 2017 define consent formally without reference to coercion, meaning the payment was authorised. The payment does not meet the definition of an APP scam under the Reimbursement Rules because: (1) there is insufficient evidence to establish an APP scam occurred; (2) Mr I was aware he was paying to avoid immediate harm to his family, not deceived about the purpose; and (3) critical supporting evidence is absent (hire agreement, collision evidence, damage valuation, evidence of threats). Even if NatWest should have intervened due to suspicious transaction indicators, such intervention would not have prevented the payment given the credible threats and genuine fear for family safety. No regulations require banks to reimburse payments made under duress, coercion or blackmail.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website