Not upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) Scam - Reimbursement Claim complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss W purchased a sofa for £420 from a seller on an online marketplace in February 2026, making payment via faster payment after delivery was attempted. The sofa delivered was not the one she ordered, and after reporting the issue, the seller became unresponsive. Miss W claimed she was the victim of an APP scam and requested reimbursement from Starling, which declined. The ombudsman found that while the seller's behaviour was concerning, the evidence did not demonstrate that Miss W was scammed according to the legal definition under the Faster Payment Scheme Reimbursement Rules. The ombudsman concluded that alternative explanations for the seller's conduct were equally or more plausible, including delivery error or the seller's decision that a swap was not worthwhile, and therefore upheld Starling's decision not to reimburse.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal definition of an APP scam under the Reimbursement Rules, which requires that either the recipient was not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment was not for the purpose the consumer intended. The ombudsman found that Miss W intended to pay the seller and the seller did receive the funds. Regarding purpose, the ombudsman concluded that while the seller's behaviour was concerning, alternative explanations existed that were equally or more plausible than a scam: the delivery driver may have delivered the wrong sofa in error, the seller may have decided it was not worth arranging a swap, or the seller may have been attempting to avoid marketplace fees by transacting directly. The ombudsman noted that a genuine scammer would typically request upfront payment and not incur delivery costs for minimal reward. The seller's bank statements showed legitimate business activity consistent with buying and selling goods, and the absence of other scam complaints against the seller suggested this was not a serial scammer.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website