Not upheld: authorised push payment (APP) scam claim / private civil dispute complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S complained to Barclays after losing money on two payments made to company C for the purchase of a campervan that was never delivered. She claimed to be a victim of an authorised push payment (APP) scam and sought reimbursement under the CRM Code. Barclays treated the matter as a private civil dispute and did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that while company C ultimately went into administration, the evidence demonstrated it was a legitimate business operating since 2009 with positive customer reviews and a properly operated bank account, rather than a fraudulent scheme. Without evidence that C set out to deceive Ms S from the outset, the ombudsman concluded this was a civil dispute over non-delivery of goods rather than an APP scam, and therefore Barclays had no obligation to reimburse the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the CRM Code definition of an APP scam, which requires evidence that the customer was deceived into transferring funds to a different person or that funds were transferred for fraudulent purposes. The code explicitly excludes private civil disputes where a customer has paid a legitimate supplier but not received goods. The evidence showed that company C was a legitimate business operating since 2009, actively engaged in the business it promoted, with positive customer reviews and a bank account operated as expected. While the business ultimately failed and went into administration, this does not necessarily indicate fraudulent intent from inception. The ombudsman concluded that business failure does not equate to scam, and without sufficient evidence that C set out to deceive Ms S from the outset, the complaint could not be upheld.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website