Not upheld: scam / fraud - failure to prevent or inadequate intervention complaint against Rightcard Payment Services Limited trading as Lemfi

Decision detail

Summary

Miss N fell victim to a job task scam after being contacted on social media, losing over £13,000 through international money transfers via Lemfi. She complained that Lemfi should have refunded her losses, citing inadequate warnings and her vulnerable circumstances. The ombudsman found that while Lemfi should have intervened at payment nine when a fraud pattern emerged, the evidence showed Miss N was so heavily manipulated by the scammer that she provided plausible false cover stories to her bank, and would likely have done the same to Lemfi or found alternative payment routes. The ombudsman also found that Miss N's vulnerability, while acknowledged, did not reach the threshold of extreme vulnerability, and Lemfi was unaware of it. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Lemfi should have intervened at payment nine when a fraud pattern emerged, the ombudsman found that such intervention would likely not have prevented Miss N's losses. Miss N was heavily manipulated by the scammer and provided plausible cover stories to bank L that masked the true nature of the scam. Had Lemfi intervened, Miss N would likely have provided similar false explanations, and even if blocked, would probably have used alternative money remittance institutions as instructed by the scammer. The ombudsman also found that Miss N's vulnerability, while acknowledged, did not reach the level of extreme vulnerability that would have made self-protection impossible, and Lemfi was not made aware of these vulnerabilities. Additionally, Lemfi's recovery efforts were prompt and appropriate, but funds had already been moved by the scammers.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website