Santander UK Plc · DRN-6054112

The complaint Miss A complains that Santander UK Plc (“Santander”) won’t refund her money, which she believes she has lost to a scam. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to all parties, so I won’t repeat it in detail here. But in summary, I understand it to be as follows. In or around June 2025, Miss A was looking to have some building work carried out on her property. Miss A had previously used a tradesperson, who I’ll refer to as “B”, to carry out some work. That work was completed successfully. Miss A has said she was happy with it, so she trusted B and so asked them to do some further work for her. On 9 June 2025, Miss A made a payment of £500 to B, from her Santander account, as a deposit for the work. However, Miss A has said that B didn’t start the work and despite attempts she has been unable to contact them. Believing she’d fallen victim to a scam, Miss A raised the matter with Santander, but it did not consider it was liable for Miss A’s loss. In summary, this was because it thought what had happened was a civil matter. Unhappy with Santander’s response, Miss A brought her complaint to this service. One of our Investigators looked into things. But he agreed with Santander, that this was most likely a civil dispute, and so Miss A was not entitled to a refund of the payment she had made. Miss A didn’t agree with our Investigator’s view, she maintained that what had happened was a scam. As agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has been passed to me for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having thought very carefully about Santander’s actions, I agree with the findings set out by our Investigator. I do appreciate how disappointing this will be for Miss A but, whilst I’m sorry to hear of what’s happened, I don’t think I can fairly hold Santander liable for her loss. When considering what is fair and reasonable in this case, I’ve thought about the relevant rules that were in place at the time the disputed payment was made. From 7 October 2024, Payment Services Providers in the UK, like Santander, have been bound by the Faster Payments Scheme (FPS) and the CHAPS reimbursement rules (“Reimbursement Rules”). Under these rules, most victims of Authorised Push Payment (APP) scams should be reimbursed – but “private civil disputes” are not covered.

-- 1 of 3 --

I’ve therefore considered whether what has happened between Miss A and B meets the Reimbursement Rules’ definition of an APP scam or could more reasonably be classed as a civil dispute. The Reimbursement Rules define an APP Scam as: “Where a person uses a fraudulent or dishonest act or course of conduct to manipulate, deceive or persuade a consumer into transferring funds from the consumer’s relevant account to a relevant account not controlled by the consumer, where: • The recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or • The payment is not for the purpose the consumer intended” By contrast, a private civil dispute is defined as; “A dispute between a consumer and payee which is a private matter between them for resolution in the civil courts, rather than involving criminal fraud or dishonesty”. In its published policy statement PS23/3, the Payment Systems Regulator gave further guidance: “2.6 Civil disputes do not meet our definition of an APP fraud as the customer has not been deceived […] The law protects consumer rights when purchasing goods and services, including through the Consumer Rights Act.” 2.5 provides an example of when this might apply: “…such as where a customer has paid a legitimate supplier for goods or services but has not received them, they are defective in some way, or the customer is otherwise dissatisfied with the supplier.” So, in order to consider what has happened here as an APP scam, I would need to be satisfied that it involves criminal deception. The evidence for this would therefore need to be convincing. Having thought about this carefully, I’m not satisfied that the Reimbursement Rules cover Miss A’s payment. There is no dispute here that Miss A paid the person she intended on paying, so the first part of the APP scam definition doesn’t apply here. I’ve therefore gone on to consider whether, as a result of dishonesty, the payment was made for a purpose other than Miss A intended. In order to be satisfied Miss A has fallen victim to an APP scam, I need to be persuaded B set out to defraud her. The allegation of fraud is a serious one. While I can reach my findings on the balance of probabilities (rather than beyond all reasonable doubt for example), to find B did intend to defraud Miss A, I’d need to see convincing evidence to show fraud is the most likely explanation over any other possibility. Here, the purpose of the payment was to complete building work. While I appreciate that Miss A has said that the work wasn’t completed. It is clear from the evidence that B had previously attended Miss A’s property, and it is not in dispute that some other work was carried out by B. So, while I don’t doubt what Miss A has said, in that work hasn’t been carried out, the evidence doesn’t support that B deceived Miss A about the very purpose of the payment (that being for the provision of building work). Alongside this, whilst I can’t go into specific details due to data protection reasons, information I’ve seen from the beneficiary bank (the bank to which the faster payment was

-- 2 of 3 --

made) supports that B didn’t have a different intention for the money that was received. Activity on the account demonstrates transactions that are consistent with the account being used by somebody carrying out work in the building trade. I’m also aware that there had been no other concerns raised about the activity on the beneficiary account. Typically, if somebody were running a fraud, you’d expect to see other concerns raised – but that isn’t the case here. I understand that Miss A has reported the matter to the police. But I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest that any substantive lines of enquiry are being pursued against B, nor that any charges have been brought. While I’m mindful it isn’t necessary for a criminal conviction to have been secured or for charges to have been brought for what happened here to meet the Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam - the fact that the relevant authorities appear not to be pursuing a substantive investigation into the allegations raised by Miss A suggests to me that the evidence presented does not, on its own, currently carry sufficient weight to support a finding of fraud. I acknowledge that Miss A did not ultimately receive what she had paid for, but there are many reasons, other than fraud, why a trader may fail to meet their commitments. They may act unprofessionally, may get into financial or personal difficulties and work may be completed to a poor standard. But it doesn’t automatically follow that this demonstrates an intent to defraud. The evidence here lends itself more to the notion that a trader has set out with the intent to complete work but hasn’t completed it - a scenario which isn’t covered by the Reimbursement Rules. I don’t intend any comments or findings I’ve made in this decision to downplay or diminish the impact these matters have had on Miss A, and I don’t underestimate her strength of feeling. But in the circumstances, having carefully considered everything, I don’t find Santander were wrong to decline Miss A’s claim when considering the Reimbursement Rules. Neither do I find there were any other failings on Santander’s part that would lead me to uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss A to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Stephen Wise Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --