Veste

Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Kroo Bank Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6420151 of 2026-07-07T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Kroo Bank Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6420151
Decision date2026-07-07T00:00:00+00:00
FirmKroo Bank Ltd
ProductCurrent account
Claim typeFraud reimbursement (APP scams)
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo additional remedy ordered. Kroo's reimbursement of £100 (the final two payments less the £100 excess) is upheld as reasonable.

Summary

Mr H lost £2,645 to an investment scam perpetrated by someone claiming to be a professional trader between July 2024 and February 2025. Kroo reimbursed only the final two payments (£180 and £20) less a £100 excess under the APP Scam Reimbursement rules that came into force on 7 October 2024, and refused to reimburse earlier payments. The ombudsman upheld Kroo's decision, finding that the individual transaction amounts were not unusual enough to trigger additional intervention, and the pattern of payments to an established payee did not reasonably indicate fraud risk. The ombudsman balanced the need to detect fraud against the disruption that would result from blocking all similar payments.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the APP Scam Reimbursement rules to the final two payments made after 7 October 2024, which Kroo correctly reimbursed less the permitted £100 excess. For earlier payments, while Mr H was a scam victim, this does not automatically require reimbursement. The individual transaction amounts were relatively low and not unusual, and the pattern of payments to an established payee over several months did not reasonably indicate fraud risk. A balance must be struck between identifying potentially fraudulent payments and avoiding disruption to legitimate transactions.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Kroo Bank Ltd, all decisions14350%
Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions21,19221%
Current account, all decisions48,69119%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website