Not upheld: refusal to refund alleged scam / APP fraud claim complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H purchased gloves online, received the wrong item, obtained a refund, then paid again via bank transfer after the seller offered to send the correct gloves but never received them. Mr H complained to NatWest seeking a refund, claiming he was the victim of a scam. NatWest refused, classifying the matter as a private civil dispute. Mr H brought his complaint to the FOS, also raising concerns about distressing language in NatWest's final response letter. The ombudsman upheld NatWest's decision, finding that Mr H's circumstances—paying for goods not received—fell within the definition of a private civil dispute explicitly excluded from APP scam protections under the Faster Payments Scheme rules, and that there was no evidence of fraudulent intent from the seller from the outset.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme rules which define APP scams as involving fraudulent or dishonest acts to manipulate or deceive a consumer into transferring funds. Private civil disputes—where a customer pays a legitimate supplier for goods or services but does not receive them—are explicitly excluded. The ombudsman found no evidence the seller intended to scam Mr H from the outset, noting the seller initially believed the order was fulfilled and engaged with Mr H to resolve the issue. A scammer would be unlikely to go to such trouble for a £9 transaction. Therefore, Mr H's circumstances constituted a contractual dispute over non-receipt of goods, not an APP scam. Regarding the distressing language in NatWest's letter, while the ombudsman acknowledged it could have been clearer, it did not warrant compensation as it was not suggesting Mr H was lying. NatWest's advisors made clear they would contact the receiving bank on a best endeavours basis, so Mr H was not given false impressions of guaranteed recovery.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website