Santander UK Plc · DRN-6138555

The complaint Miss D is unhappy Santander UK Plc (‘Santander’) hasn’t reimbursed her all of the money she lost after she fell victim to a scam. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to all parties and has been laid out in detail by our Investigator in their view. So, I won’t repeat everything in detail here, but in summary I understand it to be as follows. Miss D was looking to book some travel and was recommended an agent by a friend. Believing everything to be genuine, Miss D made three payments, totalling £1,144. But unfortunately, it appears that a genuine travel agent had been impersonated, resulting in Miss D sending her money to accounts that were controlled by fraudsters. A breakdown of the payments Miss D made is listed below: Date Amount Method of Payment 1 28 February 2025 £405 Faster Payment 2 23 April 2025 £280 Card 3 25 June 2025 £459 Card Miss D realised she’d been scammed when she didn’t receive her flight ticket, and her friend also didn’t receive their ticket. Miss D reported the matter to Santander. It looked into things and agreed to uphold her complaint in part. In summary, for the faster payment it considered The Reimbursement Rules, which came into force on 7 October 2024 and apply to all UK-based payment service providers (PSPs), and which put a requirement on firms to reimburse APP scam payments made via the Faster Payments Scheme (or CHAPS). Where applicable, the Reimbursement Rules allow for a claim excess of up to £100 to be deducted by a PSP from the APP scam amount being reimbursed. Santander agreed that Miss D had been scammed and so agreed to refund her £305 of the faster payment she made (being the payment for £405, less the £100 excess). The Reimbursement Rules do not cover card payments. So, Santander didn’t think it was liable for the remainder of Miss D’s loss. The two card payments Miss D made, went to two different money remittance services (which I’ll refer to as “A”, for payment two in the table above, and “B” for payment numbered three in the table above). A refunded Miss D the £280 that she had sent to them, but she hasn’t received a refund for payment three in the table above. Unhappy with Santander’s response, Miss D referred the matter to our service. In summary, she said she wanted the remaining £459 to be refunded. Alongside this Miss D said that other members of her group had received all of their money back from their banks.

-- 1 of 3 --

One of our Investigators looked into things but didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. In summary, she didn’t think the final payment Miss D was disputing (the payment for £459) would have appeared to Santander as carrying a heightened risk, so she didn’t think Santander had missed an opportunity to have identified the payment as being in relation to a scam. Our Investigator also didn’t think Santander had missed an opportunity to recover the money Miss D had lost. Miss D didn’t agree with our Investigator’s view. 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. I’m mindful that, in her submissions to this service, Miss D has mentioned actions that other banking providers have taken in respect of reimbursing other people in her group. That is a decision the other providers have made; however it doesn’t automatically follow that this service would consider that Santander should do the same. The specific circumstances can be different for each payment even if, on the face of it, they appear to be very similar. Here, as I’m required to do, I’ve looked at the individual circumstances of the transactions Miss D has made from her Santander account. In the circumstances of this case, Miss D has received refunds for the first two payments that she made and has said she would like the remaining £459 to also be refunded. Given the first two transactions have been refunded (less an excess for the first payment), my decision here will focus solely on the remaining payment (the payment for £459 made to B on 25 June 2025). I’m sorry to hear of what’s happened to Miss D, and I can understand entirely why she feels so strongly that this money should be returned to her. But having thought very carefully about Santander’s actions, I think it did act fairly and reasonably in allowing the payment to leave her account. I’ll explain why. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that a bank is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. It is the case that Miss D authorised the payment in dispute – and that’s accepted by all parties. And under the Payment Service Regulations 2017 (which are the relevant regulations in place here) that means Miss D is responsible for the payment. That remains the case even though Miss D was the unfortunate victim of a scam. There are times when I might expect a bank to question a transaction or payment, even though it may have been properly authorised. Broadly speaking, firms (like Santander) should fairly and reasonably have been on the lookout for the possibility of fraud in order to protect its customers from the possible risk of financial harm as a result of fraud and scams. In this case, I need to decide whether Santander acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with Miss D when she authorised the payment, or whether it should have done more than it did.

-- 2 of 3 --

I’ve thought about this carefully. Having done so, I can’t fairly say the payment Miss D made would (or should) have alerted Santander that she was potentially at risk of financial harm, to an extent whereby it should have carried out some additional checks before processing the payment. So, I don’t consider Santander are liable for the loss Miss D incurred. I’ll explain why. I have to be mindful that banks process a high volume of transfers and transactions each day. And a bank has to strike a balance as to when it should possibly intervene on a payment against not holding up or delaying its customer’s requests. Here, I don’t consider there is anything so unusual or remarkable about the payment or the amount that ought to have alerted Santander to the possibility Miss D was being scammed or was at risk of financial harm. I can see that, in the twelve months leading up to the scam, there are transactions from Miss D’s account for similar or higher amounts. While I appreciate it was a lot of money to Miss D, the amount wasn’t so significant to the point where I could reasonably have expected Santander to carry out some additional checks on it. I’ve gone on to think about whether Santander could have recovered any of the funds Miss D lost when it was made aware of the scam. Given the payment here was a card payment, I’ve considered whether the chargeback process was an option for Miss D. A chargeback is a voluntary scheme run by card scheme providers. It arbitrates on disputes between a customer and a merchant where they haven’t been able to resolve matters themselves. The arbitration process is subject to the rules of the scheme and there are only limited grounds on which a chargeback can be raised. Chargebacks raised outside of these grounds are deemed invalid. However, the records here show that Miss D moved the money through a genuine money transfer service. The merchant Miss D paid provided the service asked for, therefore there are no chargeback rights under the scheme and no prospect of a successful recovery. I am sorry to disappoint Miss D, she was the victim of a cruel scam, and she has my sympathy that she has lost money in this way. However, I can’t fairly say Santander should have prevented the loss and therefore it isn’t liable to reimburse Miss D any more than it already has. 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 D to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Stephen Wise Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --