Partially upheld: failure to prevent scam / inadequate fraud intervention complaint against Prepay Technologies Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6244888 of 2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00. failure to prevent scam / inadequate fraud intervention complaint against Prepay Technologies Ltd. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6244888 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Prepay Technologies Ltd |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | failure to prevent scam / inadequate fraud intervention |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Prepay Technologies Ltd must refund 50% of Mr M's loss from payment 4 onwards (97.38% of payments 5, 6, and 7 after accounting for 2.62% apparent returns). Total compensation: £11,943.28 less 50% = £5,971.64, plus 8% simple interest per year from date of loss to date of payment (less legally deductible tax). Payment 4 receives no reimbursement as it was reversed. |
Summary
Mr M fell victim to a cryptocurrency investment scam advertised with a celebrity endorsement, making seven payments totalling £24,555 to Coinbase between June and July 2025. The scammer posed as a legitimate investment platform and demanded further payments for various fees. The ombudsman found that Prepay should have intervened with human contact when Mr M attempted payment 4 (£8,000 in one day to a cryptocurrency exchange), which would have revealed the scam and prevented further losses. However, Mr M contributed to his loss by not seeking independent advice and failing to research celebrity-endorsed investments. Prepay was ordered to refund 50% of losses from payment 4 onwards (£5,971.64 plus interest), with payment 4 itself receiving no compensation as it was reversed.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Prepay had a duty to protect against fraud and conduct due diligence on large transactions. The first payment of £3,990 to a cryptocurrency exchange should have triggered an automated tailored warning. By payment 4 (£8,000 in one day), Prepay should have provided human intervention to discuss the payment and associated risks. Had such intervention occurred, the scam would likely have been revealed and further losses prevented. However, Mr M contributed to his loss by not seeking third-party guidance, providing inaccurate answers to security questions, and failing to research celebrity-endorsed investments, warranting a 50% reduction in compensation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Prepay Technologies Ltd, all decisions | 78 | 40% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website