Not upheld: fraud and scam losses - reimbursement claim complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6344530 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. fraud and scam losses - reimbursement claim complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6344530 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | fraud and scam losses - reimbursement claim |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None - complaint not upheld |
Summary
L, a company directed by Mr P, claimed that RBS should reimburse losses from three international payments totalling £50,070.50 sent to company G in September 2021, which L alleges was an investment scam. RBS declined the claim and the ombudsman upheld RBS's decision, finding that the payments were authorised, consistent with L's previous transaction patterns, and sent to a legitimately registered company still in operation. The ombudsman concluded that RBS could not reasonably have prevented the loss through intervention, as there were no obvious warning signs and no widely available information suggesting G was fraudulent.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Although RBS has general obligations to monitor for fraud and take protective steps, the disputed payments did not present obvious warning signs as they were consistent with L's previous transaction patterns and sent to a legitimately registered company. Even if RBS had intervened, it would not have uncovered evidence of a scam given that G was a registered company still trading and the referral came from a friend claiming to receive returns. Therefore, RBS could not reasonably have prevented the loss.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, all decisions | 17 | 21% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website