Not upheld: scam reimbursement claim - APP scam vs civil dispute complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O purchased a car for £2,600 through a classified ads website, making two payments to the seller's account. After receiving the car, he discovered damp, water damage, and driving issues, and learned that the service invoices and timing belt replacement documentation provided by the seller were fake. Mr O claimed this was an APP scam and requested reimbursement from Barclays, which declined. The ombudsman found the transaction was a private civil dispute regarding defective goods rather than an APP scam, as Mr O paid the intended recipient for the intended purpose of purchasing a specific car which he received. Although the car's condition and history were misrepresented, insufficient evidence existed to prove the seller fraudulently or dishonestly deceived Mr O, as the seller may have innocently received the false invoices from a previous owner. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the APP scam definition from the Reimbursement Rules, which requires either that the recipient was not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment was not for the purpose intended. Mr O paid the intended recipient (the seller) and the payment was for the intended purpose (purchasing a specific car which he received). Although the car's condition and service history were not as represented, this constitutes a private civil dispute regarding defective goods rather than criminal fraud or dishonesty. The evidence was insufficient to prove the seller fraudulently or dishonestly deceived Mr O, as the seller may have innocently received the false invoices from a previous owner.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website