Not upheld: scam claim and refund request complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Miss G paid £4,500 to Mr D, who worked for building company M, for garage conversion work. The work was not completed to her satisfaction and M ceased contact. Miss G claimed she was a victim of a scam and requested HSBC refund the payments. HSBC declined, stating it was a private civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld HSBC's decision, finding that while the work was poor quality and incomplete, there was insufficient evidence of criminal deception or fraudulent intent to classify this as an APP scam under the Reimbursement Rules. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal definition of an APP scam under the Reimbursement Rules, which requires evidence of criminal deception. The ombudsman found that Miss G paid the intended recipient (Mr D), the payment was for the stated purpose (building work), and some work was actually completed. While the work was of poor quality and incomplete, this does not constitute compelling proof of fraudulent intent. The ombudsman noted that legitimate contractors may fail to deliver services for reasons other than fraud, such as financial difficulties or poor management. The evidence did not demonstrate that M or Mr D set out with intent to defraud Miss G from the outset.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website