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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A paid £500 to an online seller for an engine in October 2025 but did not receive it. After reporting the matter to Barclays, the seller's account was blocked and the seller subsequently refused to send the item. Barclays declined to refund Mr A, treating it as a civil matter, and paid £25 compensation for poor service. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that while Mr A suffered a genuine loss, the evidence did not establish fraud meeting the Reimbursement Rules' definition of an APP scam. The seller's legitimate trading history, positive customer reviews, continued communication, and absence of other complaints suggested a commercial relationship breakdown rather than premeditated fraud.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires either that the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose intended. Mr A paid the intended recipient (S) for the intended purpose (engine purchase). To classify this as an APP scam, the ombudsman would need convincing evidence that S intended to defraud Mr A from the outset. The evidence showed S has been trading legitimately for years, has predominantly positive reviews, continued to communicate with Mr A after payment (atypical of scams), and the beneficiary account showed no signs of fraudulent operation or other complaints. The seller's refusal to send the item after its account was blocked appeared to be a breakdown in the commercial relationship rather than evidence of premeditated fraud. The ombudsman concluded that on the balance of probabilities, fraud was not the most likely explanation compared to other possibilities such as a failed commercial transaction or civil dispute.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website