Not upheld: scam claim - Authorised Push Payment (APP) vs private civil dispute complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P claimed that payments totalling £3,500 made to tradesman G between June and July 2025 were lost to a scam after G failed to complete agreed property works and eventually disappeared. Barclays declined to refund the payments, classifying the matter as a private civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that while some services were provided and G attended the property multiple times, the circumstances did not meet the definition of an APP scam under payment services regulations, as Mr P paid the intended recipient and there was insufficient evidence of criminal deception from the outset. The ombudsman concluded this was a civil dispute over breach of contract rather than fraud.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement rules definition of an APP scam, which requires criminal deception where either the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay or the payment is not for the purpose intended. The ombudsman found that Mr P paid the intended recipient (G) and that some services were provided, with evidence of G's engagement over a month including property attendance and material procurement. The ombudsman concluded that while building works can be mismanaged and agreements breached, this constitutes a civil dispute rather than fraud, as there was insufficient evidence that G's intentions were deceptive from the outset.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website