Upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - refund claim under CRM Code complaint against Nationwide Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6275629 of 2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00. Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - refund claim under CRM Code complaint against Nationwide Building Society. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6275629 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Nationwide Building Society |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - refund claim under CRM Code |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of £46,250 (outstanding loss after deducting £27,000 in returns received); 8% simple interest per year calculated from 12 February 2026 to date of settlement; Nationwide entitled to take assignment of rights to future distributions under administrative process to prevent double recovery |
Summary
Mr M invested £73,250 in what he believed was a legitimate rent-to-rent investment scheme operated by S, paying funds to N, a law firm acting on S's behalf. After receiving £27,000 in returns, payments stopped and Mr M raised a fraud claim with Nationwide Building Society. The ombudsman determined that S was operating an APP scam by dishonestly obtaining funds and diverting them to other companies operating unauthorised rent-to-rent schemes, with characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. Although Mr M paid funds to N, N was acting as S's agent and forwarded all funds to S, bringing the payment within CRM Code coverage. Mr M had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was legitimate based on Companies House registration, professional documentation, and positive reviews, so Nationwide cannot rely on exceptions to reimbursement. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Nationwide to refund Mr M £46,250 plus 8% simple interest from 12 February 2026 to settlement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that S was operating an APP scam by obtaining Mr M's funds through dishonest deception. Although Mr M paid funds to N (a law firm), N was acting as an agent for S and forwarded all funds to S, meaning the funds were no longer under Mr M's control once paid to N. The payment therefore falls within the CRM Code definition of an APP scam. Nationwide cannot rely on exceptions to reimbursement because Mr M had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was legitimate based on Companies House registration, professional documentation, positive reviews, and the involvement of a law firm. No effective warning was provided by Nationwide. Therefore, Mr M is entitled to reimbursement of his outstanding loss.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide Building Society, all decisions | 13,251 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website