Partially upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Zempler Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Zempler Bank Limited failed to prevent him losing £97,895.00 to a fake employment opportunity scam (Scam 1) and £11,745.00 to a recovery scam (Scam 2). The ombudsman found Zempler should have intervened on multiple payments but could not have prevented Scam 1 losses because Mr L was heavily influenced by scammers, provided false information to other providers, and would have found alternative payment methods. However, for the final payment in Scam 2 (£3,250.00), the ombudsman found Zempler could have prevented the loss because Mr L received no coaching from scammers and would have been honest if questioned, allowing the scam to be uncovered. Considering Mr L's serious health challenges and vulnerability, the ombudsman upheld the complaint in part and ordered Zempler to reimburse £1,725.59 (53.1% of the final payment after deducting proportionate share of 'recovered funds' received) plus 8% simple interest per annum.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Zempler should have intervened on payments 1 and 3, it could not have prevented the loss from Scam 1 because Mr L was under the scammers' influence, received significant coaching, provided misleading information when questioned by other providers, and would likely have found alternative means to make payments even if Zempler had restricted his account. However, for payment 23 (Scam 2), the circumstances differed significantly: Mr L did not receive coaching from scammers, was not given a cover story, and was not told to ignore warnings. The ombudsman found that Mr L would likely have been honest if questioned about payment 23, the scam would have been uncovered, and Zempler could have prevented this loss. The ombudsman also considered Mr L's vulnerability due to serious health challenges, medication affecting decision-making, and desperation to recover funds, finding it fair to hold Zempler responsible rather than Mr L jointly liable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website