Partially upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6462362 of 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6462362 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HSBC UK Bank Plc |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of 50% of loss from payment 5 = £4,232.36 (50% of £8,464.71 covering payments 5, 6 and 7). Payment of 8% simple interest on payments 5, 6 and 7 from date of loss to date of settlement. Tax deduction certificate to be provided. No compensation for distress and inconvenience as this was caused by the scammer, not HSBC. |
Summary
Mrs H lost £19,683.91 to an investment scam after seeing a fake investment opportunity on social media. She made seven payments to Firm X (a regulated money transfer provider) between May and June 2025, with the final three payments (5, 6, 7) occurring in rapid succession within 11 days, totalling £8,464.71. The ombudsman found that while the first four payments were not unusual enough to warrant intervention, payment 5 marked a significant change in pattern that should have triggered a human intervention by HSBC's fraud team. Such intervention would likely have uncovered the scam through questioning about the investment's legitimacy, promised returns, and withdrawal restrictions. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding both parties equally at fault: HSBC for failing to intervene at payment 5, and Mrs H for insufficient due diligence. HSBC was ordered to refund 50% of the loss from payment 5 (£4,232.36) plus 8% simple interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Payments 1-4 were not unusual enough to trigger intervention as they were spaced over 6 weeks to a legitimate regulated business (Firm X), and HSBC could not have known the investment purpose or elevated crypto risk. However, payment 5 marked a change in pattern - consecutive day payments with cumulative spend of £4,742.19 in two days and £8,542.19 in just over a week, significantly higher than Mrs H's normal spending. This should have triggered human intervention by a fraud and scam agent. Such an intervention would likely have uncovered the scam through probing questions about the investment opportunity, promised returns, and inability to withdraw funds - all hallmarks of investment scams. Mrs H bears contributory negligence (50%) for failing to conduct due diligence on the company, verify the investment opportunity, or question unrealistic returns. Liability is therefore shared equally from payment 5 onwards.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HSBC UK Bank Plc, all decisions | 7,604 | 23% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 21,192 | 21% |
| Current account, all decisions | 48,691 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website