Upheld: authorised push payment (APP) scam - refund claim complaint against Nationwide Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6283190 of 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00. authorised push payment (APP) scam - refund claim complaint against Nationwide Building Society. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6283190 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Nationwide Building Society |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | authorised push payment (APP) scam - refund claim |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of £25,390 (total payments of £31,110 less returns received) plus 8% simple interest per year calculated from 12 February 2026 to settlement date. Nationwide is entitled to take assignment of rights to future distributions from liquidation proceedings to avoid double recovery, subject to providing a draft assignment to Mr G for agreement. |
Summary
Mr G invested £31,110 in Company A's property rental investment scheme in July 2024, receiving returns until January 2025 when payments ceased. He requested reimbursement from Nationwide, claiming he was victim of a scam. Nationwide declined, characterising it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Company A was operating an APP scam involving misrepresentation of investment terms, misuse of investor funds in rent-to-rent schemes and trading platforms, and Ponzi scheme-like tactics. Mr G had reasonable grounds to believe the investment was legitimate based on detailed documentation and knowledge of other investors receiving returns. Nationwide was ordered to refund £25,390 plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that Mr G's payments met the CRM Code definition of an APP scam because Company A obtained the funds through dishonest deception, with a significant difference between Mr G's legitimate investment purpose and Company A's fraudulent purpose. The ombudsman was satisfied that Mr G had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was legitimate based on detailed documents, checks performed, and knowledge of other investors receiving returns. Nationwide could not rely on exceptions to reimbursement under the CRM Code, as Mr G did not ignore effective warnings and had reasonable grounds to believe the investment was legitimate. The ombudsman determined it was appropriate to decide the complaint based on available evidence without waiting for external investigations.
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