Upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Starling Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6407145 of 2026-06-17T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Starling Bank Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6407145 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Starling Bank Limited |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of £12,625.13 (representing total payments of £13,000 less £324.87 in returns received and £50 excess) plus 8% simple interest per year from the date of the Investigator's view to the date of settlement, less any tax lawfully deductible |
Summary
Ms E invested £13,000 with N, a company claiming to offer government-backed assisted living rental investments with guaranteed returns, after finding them via social media and knowing others receiving returns. N proved to be operating an APP scam, with evidence showing they misrepresented their investments, lacked claimed government contracts, owned far fewer properties than claimed, and operated as a Ponzi scheme using new investor funds to pay returns. Although Ms E was in difficult circumstances and therefore vulnerable, the ombudsman found her vulnerability did not materially impact her ability to protect herself from the sophisticated scam, and she engaged appropriately with Starling's warnings. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and directed Starling to refund Ms E £12,625.13 plus interest under the FPS Reimbursement Rules, with a £50 excess applied.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that N operated an APP scam by deceiving Ms E about the use of her funds and profitability of investments, meeting the FPS Reimbursement Rules definition. Although Ms E was vulnerable, her vulnerability did not materially impact her ability to protect herself from the sophisticated scam. Ms E engaged with Starling's proportionate warnings and did not fail the Consumer Standard of Caution through gross negligence. Therefore, Starling must refund Ms E under the FPS Reimbursement Rules, with a £50 excess applied since vulnerability did not affect her ability to protect herself.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Starling Bank Limited, all decisions | 1,021 | 25% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 20,976 | 21% |
| Current account, all decisions | 52,014 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website