Not upheld: scam / fraud claim - refund request complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Ms H paid £997 to a property investment training programme provider (P) via bank transfer and later complained that the promised services were not delivered to the standard expected, including an unavailable online portal and unethical negotiation scripts. After P's director refused her refund request, Ms H reported the matter to Barclays as a scam. Barclays declined to refund, characterizing it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that although P may have misrepresented service quality, Ms H received some services (three online sessions, social media access) indicating P intended to perform the contract, making this a contractual dispute rather than an APP scam under FPS rules.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FPS rules definition of an APP scam, which requires that a consumer be deceived about the purpose of the payment itself. Although P may have misrepresented the quality and availability of services, Ms H received some of the promised services (three online sessions, social media group access, negotiation scripts) over a 13-day period, indicating P intended to provide the services agreed. The ombudsman concluded this was a civil dispute over service quality and contractual performance, not a scam where P had no intention of providing services from the outset. The ombudsman also found no evidence that Barclays should have known about potential fraud at the point of payment or that the bank transfer method was requested for fraudulent purposes.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website