Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R paid company D approximately £9,744.80 for plumbing and property work between December 2025 and January 2026. He subsequently discovered D was not Gas Safe registered and had performed work illegally, leading to a court judgment in his favour. Mr R claimed this was a scam and requested Barclays refund approximately £6,800 of the disputed payments. Barclays declined, classifying it as a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Barclays' decision, finding that while D's conduct was unprofessional and unlicensed, the evidence did not demonstrate fraudulent intent to deceive Mr R into making payments for a materially different purpose than intended. The dispute concerned work quality and licensing rather than the fundamental purpose of the payment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires both fraudulent deception and a materially different purpose for the payment than intended. While D's failure to hold Gas Safe registration was concerning, the ombudsman found that Mr R paid the intended recipient (D) for the intended purpose (work on his property), and D did carry out work. The dispute arose over quality and licensing, not the fundamental purpose of the payment. The ombudsman noted that poor workmanship, unprofessionalism, and incompetence do not automatically constitute fraud. Additionally, factors atypical of fraud were present: D's Companies House registration and continued contact with Mr R after the dispute. The ombudsman concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence did not demonstrate that D set out with intent to defraud.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website