Not upheld: fraud reimbursement - authorised push payment scam vs civil dispute complaint against Bank of Scotland plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B paid a contractor totalling £121,450 for roof repairs between November 2024 and January 2025, with the quote escalating from £12,000 to over £100,000. He later discovered the fees were extortionate and the contractor had not communicated with his insurance provider as claimed. Mr B claimed fraud and sought reimbursement from BoS under the Reimbursement Rules for Authorised Push Payments. BoS rejected the claim as a private civil dispute rather than fraud. The ombudsman found the evidence insufficient to determine on balance of probabilities whether fraud or civil dispute was more likely, noting limited documentation, some work completion, and legitimate business discovery. The ombudsman upheld BoS's rejection but noted that Mr B could reapply if the ongoing police investigation uncovered evidence of fraud.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Reimbursement Rules which require reimbursement for APP scams but exclude private civil disputes. The key issue was whether this was fraud or a civil dispute. While some indicators suggested possible fraud (exorbitant sums, incomplete communication with insurance), other factors contradicted fraud (work was completed, account showed trade activity, no prior concerns, customer found business legitimately, no cold-calling). The evidence was insufficient to determine on balance of probabilities that fraud was more likely than a civil dispute. The ombudsman noted that a police investigation could provide better evidence and that BoS agreed to reconsider if the investigation uncovered fraud.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website