Not upheld: scam reimbursement / authorised push payment dispute complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms R paid £300 for a botox treatment (Relfydess) that failed to produce expected results. When the provider attributed this to treatment resistance—contradicting the product's marketing claims—Ms R reported the matter to NatWest as a scam and requested reimbursement. NatWest declined, classifying it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld NatWest's decision, finding that while the provider's explanation appears inconsistent with marketing claims, this does not establish the dishonesty required to meet the definition of an APP scam under the Faster Payments Scheme reimbursement rules. The matter constitutes a private civil dispute regarding treatment quality, not fraud.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) to determine whether fraud occurred. While the provider's explanation about treatment resistance appears inconsistent with Relfydess marketing claims, this does not establish dishonesty. The provider may have lacked certainty about the cause of treatment failure and relied on a commonly offered explanation. Poor outcomes due to lack of skill, application error, or incorrect advice constitute breach of contract claims within civil disputes, not fraud. The provider was legitimately registered, had a satisfactory track record, and remains trading, with no evidence of a sham business. The matter falls within the scope of private civil disputes rather than APP scams as defined in the reimbursement rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website