Not upheld: scam claim / APP fraud reimbursement complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs D paid £5,900 to a seller for a used vehicle advertised online. After delivery, she discovered the vehicle was in worse condition than advertised, lacked promised warranty, and had unpaid tax. When the seller refused a refund, Mrs D claimed it was an APP scam. Revolut declined the claim as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that although Mrs D was dissatisfied with the goods, the payment went to the intended recipient for the intended purpose, making it a civil dispute about product quality rather than fraud under FPS reimbursement rules.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FPS 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 the consumer intended. In this case, Mrs D paid the person she intended to pay (seller S) for the purpose she intended (purchase of a used vehicle). Although Mrs D received a vehicle in worse condition than expected and with unfulfilled promises regarding warranty and tax, this constitutes a civil dispute about the quality of goods rather than fraud or dishonesty in the payment transaction itself. The seller did provide a vehicle in exchange for the payment, even if unsatisfactory. Therefore, the matter does not meet the definition of an APP scam under the reimbursement rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website