Upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - failure to reimburse under CRM Code complaint against Nationwide Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6331449 of 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00. Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - failure to reimburse under CRM Code complaint against Nationwide Building Society. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6331449 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Nationwide Building Society |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - failure to reimburse under CRM Code |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of £10,000.16 (outstanding loss after accounting for returns received) plus 8% simple interest per year calculated from 21 April 2026 to date of settlement. Nationwide is entitled to take an assignment of rights to all future distributions under the administrative process to avoid double recovery. |
Summary
Mr W and Mrs W invested £50,000 with company S in a rent-to-rent investment scheme recommended by their son, who was a director of S. When returns stopped, they claimed fraud with Nationwide, which refused to respond pending law enforcement investigation. The ombudsman found that S was operating an APP scam, obtaining funds through dishonest deception by misrepresenting fund flows, property ownership, and investment structures. Mr W and Mrs W had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was genuine given their son's involvement and other investors' participation. Nationwide was required to refund the outstanding loss of £10,000.16 plus 8% interest under the CRM Code, with no applicable exceptions to reimbursement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that S was operating an APP scam based on multiple indicators including misrepresentation of fund flows, false claims about agreement transfers, properties that did not exist or were unsuitable, continued payments to collapsed entities, and Ponzi scheme-like characteristics. Mr W and Mrs W had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was genuine given the recommendation from their son who was a director of S and the involvement of other investors. Nationwide could not rely on any exception to reimbursement under the CRM Code. The ombudsman rejected Nationwide's request to delay the decision pending police investigation, finding that sufficient evidence was available to reach a fair determination on the balance of probabilities.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide Building Society, all decisions | 13,251 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website