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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M paid £175 to a cleaner for cleaning services on 20 June 2025, but was dissatisfied when the cleaner sought additional payment after viewing the room and only refunded £55. Mr M reported this to Barclays as a scam, but Barclays declined his claim as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that the transaction did not meet the definition of an Authorised Push Payment scam under the Reimbursement Rules, as Mr M paid the intended recipient for the intended purpose. The dispute arose from a pricing disagreement after the cleaner underquoted the work without seeing the room, which constitutes a civil matter rather than criminal 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. Here, Mr M paid the intended recipient (D) for the intended purpose (cleaning services). Although the service was unsatisfactory, this constitutes a civil dispute over the quality and price of services, not criminal deception. The evidence does not support that D intended to defraud Mr M from the outset; rather, D underquoted the work without seeing the room and later sought additional payment. The police classification as a civil matter and the absence of fraud indicators on D's account further support this conclusion.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website