Not upheld: authorised push payment (APP) scam claim / payment protection complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A paid over £30,000 to landscaping company M for work that was not completed as promised. She claimed this was an authorised push payment (APP) scam and sought reimbursement from Halifax. Halifax declined, treating the matter as a private civil dispute between Miss A and M. The ombudsman upheld Halifax's decision, finding that while Miss A's loss was genuine and frustrating, the evidence did not support a finding that M intended to defraud her from the outset. Some work was completed and some materials were delivered, indicating M may have encountered business difficulties rather than engaged in criminal deception. The ombudsman also found Halifax's handling of the complaint, though delayed, was not improper and did not warrant compensation beyond the apology already provided.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the high legal threshold for establishing fraud (balance of probabilities standard) and concluded that Miss A's circumstances constituted a private civil dispute rather than an APP scam. While Miss A paid who she intended to pay and the payments were made for the purpose she intended (landscaping work), the failure to complete the work does not constitute criminal deception. The ombudsman found that some work was completed and some materials were delivered, and there was no evidence that M intended fraud from the outset. The ombudsman noted that businesses can fail to provide services for many legitimate reasons (failure, mismanagement, financial difficulty) which constitute civil disputes, not scams. The ombudsman also found Halifax's handling of the complaint, while delayed, was not improper and did not warrant compensation beyond the apology already given.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website