Not upheld: scam - authorised push payment (APP fraud) complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B lost £12,625 in an authorised push payment (APP) scam in May 2025 after being manipulated by scammers posing as police officers investigating fraud. He was instructed to purchase gold which he then handed to couriers claiming to be part of a police investigation. After discovering the scam, Mr B requested Santander refund the money. Santander refused, having conducted security conversations with Mr B before the payment. The ombudsman found that although Santander had protective responsibilities, the firm took proportionate action by intervening and questioning Mr B about fraud concerns. The ombudsman concluded that Mr B provided misleading information when questioned and that even if Santander had taken stricter action, Mr B would likely have found another way to transfer the funds given his persistence in attempting payments through multiple organisations. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal starting position that firms must process authorised payments. While recognising regulatory requirements for firms to protect customers from fraud, the ombudsman found that Santander took proportionate protective action by intervening, temporarily stopping payments, and conducting multiple conversations asking about fraud and scams. The ombudsman concluded that Mr and Mrs B provided misleading information to Santander (claiming the payments were for building work and jewellery purchases from a familiar jeweller, denying they were asked to hide the purpose or move money for safety), and therefore even if Santander had asked further questions, it would likely not have received accurate information. The ombudsman noted that Mr and Mrs B's persistence in attempting payments through multiple organisations suggested they would have found another way to transfer funds even if Santander had blocked the payment entirely. The ombudsman also noted the Payment Systems Regulator's Reimbursement Rules did not apply as the payment was made to a legitimate jeweller and the customer received the gold purchased before passing it to scammers.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website