Partially upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms R was victim of a safe account scam where a fraudster posing as a Starling security specialist instructed her to make 12 card payments to masked accounts between 27-30 August 2025, totalling £35,461.31. The scammer created urgency by claiming her accounts were compromised and used a spoofed telephone number to verify their identity. Starling initially offered 50% reimbursement on most payments. The ombudsman found Starling should have intervened by payment 2 and therefore bears full responsibility for payments 2-3, but Ms R should share 50% responsibility from payment 4 onwards as she had time to independently verify the situation. Starling was instructed to pay a £1,243.24 shortfall plus 8% per annum interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Payment 1 was singular and relatively low value with nothing concerning about its destination, so should not have triggered fraud detection. Payment 2 onwards should have been flagged as suspicious due to the pattern of multiple card payments to masked accounts. Ms R should bear no responsibility for payments 2-3 as she was in a pressured environment with limited time to think. However, by payment 4 (28 August, the next day), Ms R had time to reflect outside the pressured environment and should reasonably have independently verified the situation by contacting Starling or firm A directly. The scammer's story was not particularly plausible on reflection, and the instruction not to contact Starling or firm A should have raised alarm bells. Therefore, shared responsibility (50/50) is fair from payment 4 onwards.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website