Not upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) Scam - Refund Claim complaint against Nationwide Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6260114 of 2026-04-09T00:00:00+00:00. Authorised Push Payment (APP) Scam - Refund Claim complaint against Nationwide Building Society. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6260114 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Nationwide Building Society |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | Authorised Push Payment (APP) Scam - Refund Claim |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mrs N paid £52,500 to Company C for a custom campervan in March and April 2024 but never received the vehicle after Company C entered administration. Mrs N claimed she was the victim of an APP scam and requested reimbursement from Nationwide, which investigated and declined, treating it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman reviewed the case against the CRM Code definition of an APP scam and found insufficient evidence that Company C never intended to fulfil Mrs N's order, noting the company was established, registered, had filed accounts, and showed evidence of attempting to convert vehicles. Although some customers reported receiving duplicate vehicle identification numbers, the liquidators' investigation found this affected only two customers, suggesting administration error rather than systematic fraud. The ombudsman concluded the complaint was not upheld as the loss did not meet the CRM Code definition of an APP scam.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the CRM Code definition of an APP scam, which requires that a customer transferred funds for what they believed were legitimate purposes but which were in fact fraudulent. The ombudsman found that while Mrs N intended to purchase a campervan legitimately, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that Company C never intended to fulfil this purpose. The ombudsman noted that Company C was an established, registered company with years of filed accounts, had vehicles at various stages of completion, and that the alleged fraudulent practices (such as providing duplicate vehicle identification numbers) appeared limited to only two customers rather than being widespread. The ombudsman concluded that while Company C may have been poorly managed or in financial distress, this did not constitute the dishonest deception required to meet the CRM Code definition of an APP scam.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide Building Society, all decisions | 13,232 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website