Not upheld: scam claim and refund request complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained that NatWest refused to refund payments she made to a garage that she claimed was a scam. NatWest treated the matter as a civil dispute and did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman found that Miss M had not sufficiently evidenced that she was a victim of a scam, as the available evidence showed only a dispute over repair quality and scope of work, which is common in vehicle repairs and lacks third-party expert opinion. Furthermore, the ombudsman could not establish an actual loss because Miss M appeared to have benefited from services provided, including vehicle recovery and an MOT. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test and concluded that Miss M had not sufficiently demonstrated she was a victim of a scam. The evidence showed a dispute over vehicle repair quality and scope of work, which is not uncommon and does not establish a scam without third-party expert opinion. Even if a scam had occurred, the ombudsman could not establish the actual loss because Miss M appeared to have benefited from some or all of the work completed, including use of recovery services and an MOT. Without establishing both a scam and an actual loss, the bank's obligations to protect against fraud could not be triggered.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website