Not upheld: scam loss / alleged unauthorized payment complaint against REMITLY U.K., LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Remitly refused to refund £700 he paid in January 2026 to alleged scammers who did not provide promised services. The ombudsman found the evidence insufficient to substantiate a scam, as Mr M's screenshots did not demonstrate substantial communication or proof the recipient failed to perform. Even assuming a scam occurred, Mr M authorized the payment and bore primary liability under Payment Services Regulations. Remitly had no obligation to intervene as the payment was not unusual or suspicious, and recovery was not reasonably possible given the month-long delay before reporting and the international nature of the transaction. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the payment was actually lost to a scam, as the screenshots did not demonstrate substantial conversation, what was agreed, or that the recipient ceased contact. Even assuming a scam occurred, Mr M authorized the payment and under Payment Services Regulations is liable for his own authorized payment in the first instance. Remitly had no obligation to intervene as the payment amount was not remarkable, it was a single payment with no suspicious pattern, and Remitly had no knowledge of external influence. Recovery was not reasonably possible given the month-long delay before reporting and the international nature of the payment, which fell outside UK scam protection schemes.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website