DRN-6207342

The complaint Mr M complains that Santander UK Plc (“Santander”) won’t refund payments he made as part of an alleged scam. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat it in detail here. But in summary, I understand it to be as follows. In 2024, Mr M was having a large renovation project undertaken on his property. As part of this work, Mr M employed the services of a company to carry out work on the exterior of his property. The company Mr M contracted to carry out these works will be further referred to as “Company A”. Later, having not received the entirety of the goods and services paid for, Mr M requested reimbursement of his funds from Santander as he felt he’d been the victim of a scam. Santander investigated the matter but declined to reimburse Mr M on the basis that this was a civil dispute between him and Company A. Dissatisfied with this response, Mr M referred his complaint to our service. An investigator looked into the complaint but didn’t uphold it as they also felt that this was a civil dispute between Mr M and Company A. Mr M supplied additional and detailed documentation to explain why he disagreed with our investigator’s findings. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved by the investigator, it has been passed to me for a 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. Mr M has provided detailed submissions to our service in relation to this complaint. In keeping with our role as an informal dispute resolution service, I will focus here on the points I find to be material to the outcome of Mr M’s complaint. This is not meant to be a discourtesy to Mr M and I want to assure him I have considered everything he has submitted carefully. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of a complaint, I’m required to take into account relevant: law and regulations; regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and, where appropriate, what I consider to be good industry practice at the time. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that a bank such as Santander is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations (in this case the 2017 regulations) and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account.

-- 1 of 3 --

Here it’s not in dispute that the payments were authorised, so the starting position is that Santander isn’t liable for the transactions. Taking these things into account, I need to decide whether Santander acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with Mr M. Our investigator has already provided a detailed assessment of Mr M’s complaint and I agree with their outcome, and for broadly the same reasons. At the time of the payments, Santander were a signatory of the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) Code which requires firms to reimburse customers who have been the victims of authorised push payment (APP) scams in all but a limited number of circumstances. The relevant part of the CRM Code definition of an APP scam requires that the payment was made to: “another person for what they believed were legitimate purposes but which were in fact fraudulent.” The Code also explains that it does not apply to ‘private civil disputes, such as where a Customer has paid a legitimate supplier for goods, services, or digital content but has not received them, they are defective in some way, or the Customer is otherwise dissatisfied with the supplier’. In order to reach my decision on this complaint, I’ve considered the purpose for which Mr M made, and Company A received, the payments. And, if there is a significant difference in these purposes, whether I can be satisfied that this difference was as a result of fraud or dishonesty. It’s clear that Mr M made the payments in order for building work to be carried out at his property. So, I’ve gone on to consider what purpose Company A had in mind and whether that was in line with the purpose Mr M made the payments. From the evidence Mr M has provided, it’s clear that a substantial amount of work was completed by Company A. It’s also clear that they supplied a large quantity of the materials Mr M had paid for. This, then, on the face of it, indicates that the purpose aligned at the time of the payments as it suggests Company A had the intention of completing the work. I accept that Company A didn’t complete all of the work to a satisfactory standard but, as stated above, the CRM Code does not apply to disputes regarding the standard of works and whether they are defective in some way. I’ve also considered the additional information and evidence which Mr M has supplied to our service regarding Company A’s conduct throughout his time dealing with them. Mr M has also stated that Company A’s lack of attendance following the final payment shows their intention was not to complete the work, also suggesting that their later request for further payment was done in order to fraudulently extract further funds from him. Having reviewed the correspondence between the parties in October 2025, Company A explain that they had been busy on another job before requesting payment for additional parts and labour in order to complete the works.

-- 2 of 3 --

I can certainly understand why Mr M feels that this was an attempt to fraudulently extract funds from him, but this could also demonstrate that Company A wasn’t willing to complete the work without having received additional payment, which isn’t necessarily uncommon in this area of business. So, I don’t believe Company A’s requests for further payment or lack of re-attendance to the property following a lack of payment demonstrates that they’d set out to defraud Mr M at the time the payments were made. Mr M has sought to demonstrate that Company A repeatedly lied to him about numerous matters throughout his time dealing with them. This can certainly speak to the honesty and character of the people Mr M was dealing with but, given how much work they had carried out, I don’t believe this alone shows they didn’t have the intention of completing the work. I appreciate that Company A had lied about carrying out the work for which the final payment was made. But, I can also see from the correspondence that they later agreed to carry out this work upon receipt of additional payment for other work that was required. While Company A may have been dishonest with Mr M, their failure to carry out the work could have been the result of not receiving payment for additional work that was genuinely required and that they genuinely intended on completing. Because of this, I’m not persuaded that this demonstrates Company A were fraudulently extracting funds from Mr M. Ultimately, it appears as though Mr M made payments for building work to be carried out at his property and the evidence supplied to our service doesn’t sufficiently demonstrate that Company A didn’t have the intention of carrying out those works at the time of the payments. I’ve every sympathy for Mr M as it’s clear that this situation has had a large impact on him. But, for the reasons stated above, I don’t believe that the payments he made to Company A meet the definition of an APP scam under the CRM Code. I’m therefore unable to say that Santander has acted incorrectly in this instance or that they should reimburse his funds. I’m not saying that Mr M hasn’t suffered a loss, nor making a judgement as to whether Company A’s business practices, workmanship or behaviour were acceptable. I’m only looking at whether I can fairly hold Santander liable under the CRM Code and, in this case, I’m not persuaded that I can. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint against Santander UK Plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Billy Wyatt Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --