Upheld: authorised push payment (APP) scam - reimbursement claim complaint against Starling Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6365593 of 2026-05-29T00:00:00+00:00. authorised push payment (APP) scam - reimbursement claim complaint against Starling Bank Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6365593 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Starling Bank Limited |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | authorised push payment (APP) scam - reimbursement claim |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Reimburse Mr P's losses of £3,177.91 under the CRM Code; pay 8% simple interest calculated from the date of the investigator's view until settlement; provide tax deduction certificate if requested; Starling may take assignment of rights to future distributions under liquidation process if it wishes, subject to providing draft assignment to Mr P for agreement. |
Summary
Mr P, a director of company T, made a payment to Company A for an investment in a rent-to-rent property scheme but did not receive returns and suspected a scam. Starling initially declined reimbursement, classifying it as a failed investment. The ombudsman found that Company A operated a fraudulent scheme, making false claims about FCA authorisation, government involvement, property portfolios, and relationships with assisted living providers. Mr P had taken reasonable steps to verify the investment's legitimacy before making the payment. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and required Starling to reimburse Mr P's losses of £3,177.91 plus 8% simple interest under the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Mr P's payment met the CRM Code's definition of an APP scam because Company A operated outside the business model presented to investors through dishonest deception. The ombudsman determined that Starling's warnings were not specific enough to the circumstances of Mr P's payment to be considered 'effective warnings' under the CRM Code exceptions. The ombudsman also found that Mr P had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was legitimate based on the professional documents, positive online reviews, Companies House records, and advice from a regulated financial advisor. Therefore, Starling could not rely on exceptions to reimbursement under the CRM Code.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Starling Bank Limited, all decisions | 992 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website