Upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - irresponsible failure to reimburse under CRM Code complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6321606 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - irresponsible failure to reimburse under CRM Code complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6321606 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HSBC UK Bank Plc |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - irresponsible failure to reimburse under CRM Code |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of £161,709.25 (outstanding loss) plus simple interest calculated using time-weighted average of Bank of England base rate plus 1 percentage point from date HSBC declined the claim to date of settlement. HSBC entitled to take assignment of rights to future distributions under administration to avoid double recovery. |
Summary
Mrs A and Mr A invested £337,955.78 with company G between 2019 and 2023, receiving £176,246.53 in returns before G went into administration, resulting in a loss of £161,709.25. They claimed the investment was a scam, but HSBC declined to reimburse them under the CRM Code, characterising it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that G had operated an APP scam by dishonestly deceiving investors about insurance protection, contract revenue, and misusing funds for personal purposes and unrelated activities. HSBC was required to refund the outstanding loss plus interest, as it had already made a final decision and could not rely on exceptions to reimbursement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that Mrs A and Mr A were victims of an APP scam under the CRM Code definition, as G obtained their funds through dishonest deception for purposes materially different from what was represented. The evidence showed G misled investors about insurance protection, contract revenue, and misused funds for personal purposes and unrelated activities. The ombudsman rejected HSBC's reliance on R3(1)(c) because HSBC had already made a final decision declining the claim. The ombudsman also rejected the 'reasonable basis of belief' exception because Mrs A and Mr A had conducted reasonable due diligence including Companies House checks, office visits, director meetings, and were shown false insurance documentation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HSBC UK Bank Plc, all decisions | 7,532 | 23% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website