Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C lost £124,999 to an investment scam after making 9 payments from his Santander account between June 2024 and January 2025. Santander intervened on payment 4 (£15,000 to cryptocurrency) by requiring a telephone call, but provided only generic scam warnings rather than tailored warnings about investment scam patterns. The ombudsman found this intervention was inadequate but concluded that stronger intervention would not have prevented the losses, as evidenced by Mr C's subsequent resistance to similar and more detailed intervention by an EMI, where he explicitly refused to provide evidence and stated he would move his money elsewhere if the payment was blocked. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman accepted that Santander should have intervened from payment 4 onwards and that the intervention provided was inadequate - generic warnings rather than tailored warnings about investment scam features. However, the critical issue was whether proportionate intervention would have stopped Mr C proceeding. The EMI's subsequent intervention provided the answer: despite asking probing questions, requesting evidence, and explicitly warning that the scheme appeared to be a scam, Mr C remained adamant he would proceed and would move his money elsewhere if blocked. This demonstrated that Mr C was not receptive to fraud warnings regardless of how well-tailored or forceful they were. Therefore, even stronger intervention by Santander (such as blocking payments or requiring a branch visit) would likely not have prevented the losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website