Not upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam reimbursement claim complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N paid a builder, Mr C, a total of £2,940 for building work and materials to rebuild an outhouse. After Mr C stopped attending the property and failed to deliver materials or complete work, Mr N requested reimbursement from his bank, Barclays, claiming he had been scammed. Barclays declined the claim as a civil matter. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that while Mr N suffered loss, the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr C had fraudulent intent from the outset, and alternative explanations such as business breakdown or personal circumstances were equally plausible. The complaint was classified as a private civil dispute rather than an Authorised Push Payment scam under the applicable reimbursement rules.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the APP scam definition which requires demonstrating that the recipient used fraudulent or dishonest conduct to manipulate or deceive the consumer. Since Mr N paid who he intended to pay (someone linked to Mr C), the question was whether the payment was for the intended purpose, requiring proof that Mr C set out to defraud him. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to demonstrate Mr C's intent to defraud, noting alternative plausible explanations including that Mr C may have become unable or unwilling to complete the work, that his mother's death may have occurred, or that the relationship simply broke down. The lack of written agreements, Mr C's prior satisfactory completion of jobs for Mr N, and the absence of other claims against the account were cited as factors preventing a conclusion of fraud. The ombudsman concluded this was a private civil dispute rather than an APP scam.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website