Not upheld: disputed payment / refusal to refund payment made under duress complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (RBS)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms P complained that RBS should refund a £3,000 payment she made after receiving a call from her son abroad claiming to be held at gunpoint and threatened with serious harm unless she paid. RBS declined to refund, stating the payment was authorised and the matter was a police issue. The ombudsman found that while Ms P was clearly a victim of crime, the circumstances did not meet the legal definition of an APP scam under the FPS Reimbursement Rules, which requires deception about the recipient's identity or payment purpose. Since Ms P knew exactly who she was paying and why (to prevent harm to her son), but was coerced through threats, the ombudsman concluded RBS was not liable to refund under the rules and had not otherwise acted at fault.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that while Ms P was clearly a victim of crime, the circumstances did not meet the legal definition of an APP scam under the FPS Reimbursement Rules. The rules require deception about either the identity of the recipient or the purpose of the payment. In this case, Ms P knew exactly who she was paying and why (to prevent harm to her son), but was coerced through threats rather than deceived. The ombudsman also found that RBS was not at fault for processing the authorised payment instruction, as it was not so unusual or concerning that RBS should have flagged it as suspicious, and RBS was not notified of the issue until several days later when funds had likely already been moved.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website