Not upheld: scam reimbursement claim - APP scam vs civil dispute complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B complained that Nationwide Building Society refused to reimburse her for payments made to a roofing contractor, Mr D, whom she believed had scammed her. She had paid for roofing work that was completed to a poor standard and was incomplete. Nationwide declined the claim as a civil dispute rather than a scam. The Ombudsman upheld Nationwide's decision, finding that although Miss B was dissatisfied with the service, the payments met the intended purpose (roofing work) and were made to the intended recipient (Mr D), therefore not meeting the APP scam definition under the reimbursement rules. The evidence, including beneficiary account activity and law enforcement's closure of the investigation, supported that this was poor service delivery rather than fraudulent deception.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied the APP scam definition under the reimbursement rules, which requires either that the recipient was not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment was not for the purpose intended. Here, Miss B paid Mr D, who was the intended recipient, and the purpose was roofing work, which Mr D did undertake. Although the work was poor quality and incomplete, this constitutes a civil dispute regarding service quality rather than fraud. The beneficiary account activity was consistent with legitimate building/roofing trade use, Mr D offered remedial works (atypical fraudster behaviour), and law enforcement did not pursue a substantive investigation, all supporting that this was poor service delivery rather than fraudulent deception about the payment's purpose.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website