Upheld: APP scam reimbursement under FPS Reimbursement Rules complaint against Metro Bank PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6275865 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. APP scam reimbursement under FPS Reimbursement Rules complaint against Metro Bank PLC. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6275865 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Metro Bank PLC |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | APP scam reimbursement under FPS Reimbursement Rules |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Metro Bank PLC must pay Mr I: (1) £5,000 minus an optional excess of up to £100; (2) 8% simple interest per year on that amount from the date Metro declined the claim to the date of settlement, less any tax lawfully deductible |
Summary
Mr I sent £5,000 to someone called 'J' on 17 October 2024 for a supposed gold investment, expecting returns within ten days. After receiving various excuses and eventually losing contact with J, Mr I reported the matter to Metro in June 2025, which declined reimbursement classifying it as a civil dispute. An FOS Investigator upheld the complaint, finding Mr I was victim of an APP scam, supported by another bank's acceptance of the scam and reimbursement. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the FPS Reimbursement Rules apply as a non-fault based mechanism, and Metro cannot rely on exceptions since it did not intervene at the time of payment.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The FPS Reimbursement Rules define an APP scam as fraudulent or dishonest manipulation to deceive a consumer into transferring funds where the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay or the payment is not for the intended purpose. The evidence, including acceptance by another bank and the recipient bank that this was a scam, combined with the hallmarks of scam behaviour (excuses, promises, eventual non-contact), establishes on balance that Mr I was victim of an APP scam. Metro cannot rely on the Consumer Standard of Caution Exception because it did not intervene at the time of payment. The FPS Reimbursement Rules are non-fault based and do not provide exceptions based on whether intervention would have made a difference or whether the consumer failed to conduct due diligence.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Metro Bank PLC, all decisions | 1,221 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website