Not upheld: scam and fraud - failure to intervene on payment and failure to process chargeback complaint against Santander UK Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6321351 of 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00. scam and fraud - failure to intervene on payment and failure to process chargeback complaint against Santander UK Plc. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6321351 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Santander UK Plc |
| Product | debit card |
| Claim type | scam and fraud - failure to intervene on payment and failure to process chargeback |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy ordered. The £225 compensation already provided by Santander for service delays was upheld as fair and reasonable. |
Summary
Ms K was scammed out of £1,197 when she paid for flights from a fake travel agent on 30 July 2025. She reported the scam to Santander immediately, but Santander miscategorised the claim and delayed requesting information until 21 October 2025. Ms K claims she did not receive this letter or respond to a follow-up letter dated 10 November 2025, resulting in the chargeback window expiring. Santander rejected her refund claim but offered £225 compensation for delays. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that Santander was not obligated to intervene on the payment and that a chargeback was unlikely to have succeeded even if pursued, as the merchant could demonstrate a service was provided.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and FCA Consumer Duty to assess whether Santander should have intervened on the payment. While banks must monitor for fraud, they must balance this against not unnecessarily delaying legitimate transactions. The payment of £1,197 to a well-known travel merchant, though larger than Ms K's typical spending, was not unusual enough to warrant intervention given her previous transaction history. Regarding the chargeback, although Santander delayed in requesting information, the timeframes provided were still sufficient. However, even if Ms K had responded, the chargeback was unlikely to succeed because Company L would have been able to demonstrate that a service was provided (albeit to a scammer using Ms K's money), and chargeback dispute services focus on whether a service was provided rather than investigating scam allegations. The £225 compensation for service delays was deemed fair and reasonable given the lack of information and that the primary harm was caused by the scammer rather than Santander.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Santander UK Plc, all decisions | 14,445 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website