Not upheld: scam/fraud - refund of losses and recovery complaint against Paysafe Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6333862 of 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00. scam/fraud - refund of losses and recovery complaint against Paysafe Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6333862 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Paysafe Financial Services Limited |
| Product | electronic money wallet |
| Claim type | scam/fraud - refund of losses and recovery |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. Paysafe's partial refund of £50 stands. |
Summary
Ms C lost £152.18 to a job scam via a Paysafe electronic money wallet transfer. She reported the scam on 8 August 2025, but Paysafe did not acknowledge her claim promptly, only providing a final response on 3 September 2025 with a partial refund of £50. Ms C complained that Paysafe should have refunded her full loss, intervened to prevent the payment, recovered the funds, or compensated her for delays. The ombudsman found the payment was not covered by FPS Reimbursement Rules, was not unusual enough to trigger fraud detection, recovery was not feasible as scammers move funds quickly, and delays did not warrant compensation given Paysafe had already refunded more than recommended and the primary distress was caused by the scam itself.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Paysafe was not required to refund Ms C's losses because: (1) the payment was not covered by FPS Reimbursement Rules as it was a wallet-to-wallet transfer rather than a faster payment or CHAPS; (2) the £152.18 payment was not objectively high value or unusual enough to trigger fraud detection intervention, particularly given Paysafe's limited account history for a newly opened account; (3) Ms C's vulnerabilities were not disclosed to Paysafe and therefore could not form a basis for refund; (4) recovery was not feasible as scammers typically move funds within minutes to hours, and a full day had passed before Ms C reported the fraud; and (5) while Paysafe had delays in acknowledging the claim and complaint, this did not warrant compensation given that Paysafe had already refunded £50 (more than the ombudsman would have recommended), the primary distress was caused by the scam itself rather than Paysafe's actions, and even earlier acknowledgment would not have changed the investigation timeline or outcome.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Paysafe Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 43 | 28% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website