Not upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam reimbursement claim complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs J complained that NatWest should reimburse them for payments made to a builder (Mr C) for garage conversion work that they believed was a scam, as only approximately 15% of agreed work was completed despite substantial payments and materials were never delivered. NatWest declined to reimburse, classifying it as a civil dispute rather than a scam, and the FOS investigator agreed. The ombudsman upheld this decision, finding that while the case contained some fraud hallmarks, there was insufficient evidence to prove Mr C acted with criminal intent to defraud from the outset, as he did complete some work on multiple occasions and other explanations such as incompetence or financial mismanagement remained plausible. The complaint was not upheld and no reimbursement was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) to assess whether fraud occurred, noting that the threshold for establishing fraud is high and requires the allegation to be more probable than the opposite conclusion. While acknowledging fraud hallmarks such as repeated excuses and non-delivery of materials, the ombudsman found that the completion of some work on multiple occasions, the request for payment to a genuine building inspection firm, and the possibility of other explanations (incompetence, financial mismanagement, relationship breakdown, unwillingness to complete) meant the evidence did not meet the high bar required to prove Mr C acted with criminal intent and never intended to complete the works. The ombudsman concluded this was a civil dispute rather than an APP scam under the reimbursement rules definition.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website