DRN-6162885

The complaint Mr and Mrs S complain that Santander UK Plc (Santander) won’t refund the money they paid to a private tutor for their daughter, who they’ve said scammed them. What happened Mr and Mrs S say in August 2025, they hired a private tutor (from a company I’ll refer to as T) to provide lessons to their daughter. After an introductory call with the tutor, they paid £340 in advance for four lessons. Mr and Mrs S said these were delivered, but they noticed some unprofessional and erratic behaviour from the tutor. For continuity for their daughter, they paid £280 in advance for a further four sessions for October 2025. However, after making the payment they asked for feedback from the tutor. Mr and Mrs S said they received verbal abuse and accusations in response. Due to the responses received from the tutor, they cancelled the further four lessons and asked for a refund, which was declined by T. Mr and Mrs S said they also found the tutor tried to sell their daughter items from a website that they ran during the lessons. Mr and Mrs S believe that T’s intent from the outset was fraudulent and that they fell victim to a scam. They said T established a false sense of professionalism and collected advance payments, before then refusing to provide the service and a refund, and they used intimidation and false accusations to deter complaints. Mr and Mrs S reported the payments to Santander. Ultimately Santander did not uphold the scam claim, or the subsequent complaint that Mr and Mrs S made, as it said it was a civil dispute between them and T. Unhappy with the response, Mr and Mrs S referred their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our Investigator acknowledged that Faster Payments made after 7 October 2024, were covered by the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules (“the Reimbursement Rules”), but only if they were made as a result of an Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam. They noted “private civil disputes” were not covered by the Reimbursement Rules though and concluded that Mr and Mrs S’s dispute with T was a civil one. Mr and Mrs S disagreed, and so the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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 done so, I have decided to not uphold this complaint. I know this will be disappointing for Mr and Mrs S, but I’ll explain why I’ve reached that conclusion.

-- 1 of 3 --

I’d like to reassure the parties that although I’ve only summarised the background, so not everything that happened or has been argued is mentioned, I have considered everything that has been submitted in its entirety. As the Investigator has already set-out, APP scam payments made through Faster Payments transfers on or after 7 October 2024 may be eligible for reimbursement under the Reimbursement Rules. In this case, there’s a dispute about whether Mr and Mrs S fell victim to an APP scam. Under the Reimbursement Rules an APP scam is defined 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”. There’s no dispute that Mr and Mrs S paid who they intended to pay, so I need to consider whether the purpose for their payments matched T’s. So, in other words, Mr and Mrs S need to demonstrate that T set out to defraud them. As a starting point, Mr and Mrs S say that T did provide the original block of lessons as agreed. So, it is clear the first payment was procured for the provision of lessons, and those lessons were provided, and so it doesn’t meet the definition of an APP scam. The second payment was also for the procurement of further lessons, and those were not received. The lessons not being received doesn’t necessarily mean Mr and Mrs S were scammed though. While I’m sorry to hear about the position Mr and Mrs S find themselves in, there isn’t enough evidence to demonstrate that T set out to defraud them and never intended on providing the lessons. From the email evidence submitted, I can see shortly after the second payment was made, there was breakdown in communication between Mr and Mrs S, and the tutor. This ultimately led Mr and Mrs S to cancel the further lessons they’d paid for and request a refund. While I acknowledge what Mr and Mrs S have said about the tutor’s actions during the lessons and after, and while that might be indicative of poor business practice, they aren’t enough to demonstrate fraud. So, I’m not persuaded there is enough evidence to show that T intentionally accepted the payment for lessons it had no intention of providing in October 2025. I find it more likely from the evidence provided, that the breakdown in communication after the payment had been made, resulted in the lessons not going ahead. T also refused to provide a refund to Mr and Mrs S when they asked for it. I can see it provided reasons for this, but again failing to provide a refund isn’t enough to show that it never intended to provide the lessons from the outset.

-- 2 of 3 --

Considering the provision of the original lessons and the breakdown in communication that took place after the second payment was made, I’m not persuaded T intended to defraud Mr and Mrs S. On balance, I think T’s intended purpose for the funds matched Mr and Mrs S’s for both payments at the time and so I don’t think it meets the definition of an APP scam. And I think Santander acted reasonably when it treated the case as a civil dispute. Given the conclusion that the payment was not fraudulent, the expectations on Santander, to act in line with the Reimbursement Rules, is not triggered here. My final decision For the reasons above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S and Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. John Ryan Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --