Not upheld: APP scam reimbursement claim - disputed classification as scam versus civil dispute complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M paid a tradesman £10,000 for bathroom renovation and garage conversion work. The work was left incomplete and of poor quality, and the garage work never started. When G became unresponsive, Mrs M complained to Barclays claiming she was a victim of an APP scam. Barclays declined to refund, classifying the matter as a private civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that while the tradesman's conduct was poor, the evidence did not support that he intended to deceive Mrs M from the outset, as he was legitimately recommended, had engaged in detailed planning, and had started work. The ombudsman concluded this was a contractual dispute over defective services rather than a scam, and therefore outside the scope of APP scam reimbursement rules.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the APP Scam Reimbursement rules definition, which requires proof that the recipient deceived the consumer about the purpose of the payment from the outset. The evidence showed G appeared to be operating a legitimate business (evidenced by successful prior work for Mrs M's friend), had engaged in detailed discussions about the work, and had started work on the bathroom. The fact that work was incomplete and poor quality does not meet the high legal threshold for fraud; rather, it suggests a contractual dispute about goods and services paid for but not properly delivered. Such disputes are specifically excluded from APP scam reimbursement rules and are more appropriately resolved through civil courts.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website