Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against ClearBank Limited (trading as Tide)

Decision detail

Summary

G, represented by its director Mr J, sought reimbursement from Tide for £6,790 paid to a contractor (W) for property work that was not completed. Mr J claimed G was a victim of a scam. Tide declined the claim as a private civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Tide's decision, finding that while W failed to complete the work, the evidence did not demonstrate criminal fraud or dishonest intent. W was a registered company that performed some work and materials, and its failure to complete appeared attributable to genuine health issues affecting its key personnel rather than fraudulent deception. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the APP scam definition from the Reimbursement Rules, which requires fraudulent or dishonest deception. The ombudsman found no persuasive evidence that W intended to defraud G from the outset. Key factors included: G paid the intended recipient (W); the stated purpose (property work) was partially fulfilled; some work and materials were genuinely provided; W's bank had no concerns about the account; W was a registered company; and health issues affecting W's key personnel provided a plausible explanation for non-completion. The ombudsman concluded this was a civil dispute over incomplete services rather than criminal fraud.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website