Not upheld: alleged scam and fraud; refusal to reimburse payments complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Miss D paid a builder £3,676 for bathroom refurbishment work through her Barclays account via faster payments. The builder completed some initial work but Miss D was dissatisfied with the quality. After dismantling two bathrooms, the builder claimed a hand injury and abandoned the project without completion. Miss D believed she had been scammed and requested Barclays refund the payments, but Barclays declined, treating it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that the evidence did not establish fraud meeting the definition of an Authorised Push Payment scam under the Reimbursement Rules, as Miss D paid the intended recipient for the stated purpose and the builder did perform some work, suggesting a legitimate business relationship that deteriorated rather than a premeditated scam.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires criminal deception where the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay or the payment is not for the purpose intended. The ombudsman found that Miss D paid the person she intended (O) and the payment was for the stated purpose (building work). While O did not complete all work satisfactorily, the evidence showed O attended the property, completed some work, arranged a replacement builder, and remained in contact with Miss D. The ombudsman concluded that the evidence did not meet the high threshold required to establish fraud on the balance of probabilities, and that the dispute more likely represented a breakdown in a legitimate business relationship rather than a premeditated scam. The ombudsman noted that poor workmanship, quality issues, and service failures are specifically excluded from the APP scam definition under the Reimbursement Rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website