Upheld: scam - authorised push payment (APP); irresponsible failure to reimburse under CRM Code complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6148281 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. scam - authorised push payment (APP); irresponsible failure to reimburse under CRM Code complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6148281 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lloyds Bank PLC |
| Product | investment |
| Claim type | scam - authorised push payment (APP); irresponsible failure to reimburse under CRM Code |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of £210,636.42 (total investment of £302,400 minus interest payments received of £91,763.58) plus 8% simple interest from 17 October 2025 to date of settlement. Tax deduction certificate to be provided if legally required to deduct tax. |
Summary
Mr S invested £302,400 with company G, which presented itself as a building company with a contract to install air conditioning units for a major hotel chain. G initially paid interest but subsequently went into administration. Mr S claimed the investment was a scam and complained to Lloyds, which did not respond substantively. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that although G appeared legitimate, evidence from administrators and the insurance provider demonstrated G had raised far more from investors than its contract required, deceived investors about future work and insurance coverage, and misused funds for personal expenses and sponsorship. The ombudsman determined Mr S was a victim of an APP scam under the CRM Code and that Lloyds should have reimbursed him when he first reported the claim. Lloyds was ordered to refund £210,636.42 plus 8% interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that Mr S was the victim of an APP scam as defined in the CRM Code. Although G had a genuine contract with the hotel chain, the evidence showed G raised far more from investors (£25.3 million) than needed to fulfil the contract (£4.4 million), deceived investors about future work projections, falsely claimed to have insurance protection, and misused investor funds for personal and sponsorship purposes. The fact that G appeared legitimate at the time Mr S made payments does not mean it was legitimate. The ombudsman rejected Lloyds' argument that criminal intent must be proven, noting the CRM Code does not require this standard. The ombudsman also determined it was not necessary to wait for police investigation outcomes, as sufficient evidence was already available to reach a fair decision on the balance of probabilities. Lloyds failed to establish any exceptions to reimbursement under the CRM Code.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lloyds Bank PLC, all decisions | 19,797 | 16% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website