Partially upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Skrill Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6417986 of 2026-06-16T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Skrill Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6417986 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-16T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Skrill Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Skrill must reimburse Miss S £972.55 (representing the outstanding loss from payment 10 after deducting the £100 excess already applied and accounting for £12 credits received, apportioned proportionately across all payments at 0.45% of total loss). Additionally, Skrill must pay interest at 8% per annum on the £972.55 from the date the claim outcome was given until the date of settlement. |
Summary
Miss S fell victim to a job scam requiring deposits to a fraudulent online platform, losing £2,656.76 across 10 payments made between 28-31 March 2025. Skrill refunded four faster payments (£670 less £100 excess) but refused to refund a fifth faster payment of £980, claiming it was not included in the original claim and lacked sufficient evidence. The ombudsman found that payment 10 was documented in Skrill's own submissions and final response letter, and as an eligible APP scam payment, should have been reimbursed under the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules. Card payments were not covered by the scheme and neither party disputed this. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, ordering Skrill to reimburse £972.55 plus 8% interest, accounting for credits received and the excess already applied.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Under the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules, payment service providers must reimburse eligible APP scam claims unless they can show the Consumer Standard of Caution Exception applies. Skrill had already accepted liability for payments 1-4 under these rules. Payment 10 (£980) was an eligible faster payment made as part of the same scam and was included in Miss S's original claim as evidenced by Skrill's own submissions and final response letter. Skrill provided no evidence of intervention that would trigger the exception to reimbursement. Therefore, Skrill should have reimbursed payment 10 when first claimed. Card payments (5-9) are not 'push' payments and fall outside the Reimbursement Rules; neither party disputed this and the payments were not so unusual as to require intervention.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Skrill Limited, all decisions | 120 | 25% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 20,976 | 21% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website