Not upheld: scam reimbursement and fraud protection complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited (trading as Chase)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Chase refused to refund £1,228.99 in payments made whilst he was intoxicated and allegedly coerced into paying for prostitution services that were never provided. He claimed Chase failed to assess that payments were made under duress and should have intervened based on unusual transaction patterns. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to establish a scam had occurred, noting limited detail, inconsistencies, lack of police report, and uncertainty about whether services were provided. The ombudsman concluded Chase's obligations under APP Scam Reimbursement Rules did not apply and that the bar for intervention was high given the payments were to a regulated firm's account. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that whilst Mr S's account of events was not disbelieved, there was insufficient evidence to establish that a scam had occurred. The information provided was limited, lacked detail on coercion tactics, and there was no police report. The ombudsman noted inconsistencies and gaps, including uncertainty about whether services were provided and whether pressure occurred before or after the final payment. Critically, the ombudsman found that Mr S's intoxication claim was undermined by his ability to make payments, complete account opening processes, and see warnings. Without establishing a scam, Chase's obligations under APP Scam Reimbursement Rules did not apply. Regarding intervention, the ombudsman found the bar for Chase to intervene was high given the payments were for relatively low amounts within credit limit and to a regulated firm's account. The service complaint was addressed by Chase's apology.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website