Not upheld: scam reimbursement claim / Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a car for £4,850 from an online seller (K) via his Santander account on 24 May 2025. After taking possession, he discovered serious mechanical defects and attempted to obtain a refund, but K blocked him. Mr B claimed he had been scammed and requested reimbursement from Santander, which declined on the basis that this was a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Santander's decision, finding that the transaction did not meet the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam because Mr B paid the intended recipient for the intended purpose, and the defective goods constitute a product quality issue rather than criminal fraud. The evidence did not support that K intended to defraud Mr B at the time of payment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires fraudulent or dishonest conduct to manipulate or deceive a consumer into transferring funds for a purpose other than intended. The ombudsman found that Mr B paid the intended recipient (K), received the intended goods (the car), and that the seller's purpose (to sell the car) matched Mr B's purpose (to buy it). While the car was defective, this constitutes a civil dispute regarding product quality, not criminal fraud. The ombudsman noted that the threshold for establishing fraud is high (balance of probabilities standard), and the available evidence did not demonstrate that K intended to defraud Mr B at the time of payment. The pre-purchase inspection found no serious issues, suggesting K may have been unaware of the severity of defects. The lack of a substantive investigation by authorities and the normal account activity at the beneficiary bank further supported that fraud was not the most probable explanation. Defective goods are specifically excluded from the Reimbursement Rules definition of APP scams.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website