Not upheld: scam reimbursement / authorised push payment (APP) scam claim complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W and Miss W paid £9,131.25 to a tradesperson for roofing work between December 2025 and January 2026. The tradesperson abandoned the job claiming he had run out of money, and a subsequent survey revealed the work was substandard and would need to be completely redone. Mr W and Miss W claimed this was an APP scam and requested reimbursement from Barclays, which declined. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that despite the poor outcome, the situation constituted a civil dispute over defective services rather than an APP scam, as the consumer was not deceived about the purpose of the payments at the time they were made and the tradesperson appeared to have intended to perform the work.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme and CHAPS reimbursement rules, which define an APP scam as occurring when a person uses fraudulent or dishonest conduct to deceive a consumer into transferring funds for a purpose the consumer did not intend. The ombudsman found that while the work was substandard and incomplete, T appeared to have carried out significant work including providing scaffolding and materials, suggesting an intention to deliver the agreed services. The ombudsman concluded that T's explanation for non-completion (running out of money) was plausible and that there was insufficient evidence to establish that T never intended to complete the work at the time payments were made. The ombudsman distinguished this from a scam, noting that businesses can fail to complete work due to poor financial management without this constituting fraud. The ombudsman also noted that the purpose of the payments (roofing work) was not misrepresented at the time of payment, and that this therefore constituted a civil dispute rather than an APP scam.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website