Redress record
Ombudsman decisions and fraud rulings
The Financial Ombudsman Service is free and its decisions bind the firm. These are the patterns its scam and fraud decisions turn on, and the rulings and rule changes behind them. Descriptions of published outcomes only — we do not assess anyone's claim.
Decision patterns · 0 summarised · 0 landmark
Timeline · rulings and rule changes
· Rule change
Expanded fraud data sharing between banks
Firms broadened direct sharing of indicators on accounts receiving scam payments, aimed at closing mule accounts faster.
The practical test is how quickly a receiving account is frozen after the first report.
UK Finance· Rule change
Ombudsman award limits uprated for the new year
The maximum award the Financial Ombudsman Service can require a firm to pay was uprated, with the limit applied according to when the act complained about took place.
The ceiling that applies to your complaint depends on the date of the event, not the date you complain.
Financial Ombudsman Service· Legislation
Failure to prevent fraud offence in force
Large organisations became liable where an associated person commits fraud for their benefit and reasonable prevention procedures were not in place.
It shifts attention onto the firms whose systems fraud passes through, not only the individuals running it.
GOV.UK· Rule change
Mandatory APP fraud reimbursement begins
Reimbursement for authorised push payment fraud on Faster Payments became mandatory, with cost shared 50:50 between sending and receiving firms and a decision expected within five business days.
Reimbursement stopped depending on which bank you happened to use. Sending banks now carry a hard deadline.
Payment Systems Regulator· Legislation
Online Safety Act includes fraudulent advertising duties
Large platforms and search services were given duties to prevent and remove fraudulent paid advertising.
Most investment scams reach victims through paid adverts, so enforcement here matters more than any consumer checklist.
GOV.UK· Rule change
Consumer Duty takes effect
Firms became subject to a duty to deliver good outcomes for retail customers, including in communications, support and complaint handling.
It gives complaints about poor warnings, obstructive support and confusing letters a clearer regulatory hook.
FCA· Court ruling
Supreme Court rules in Philipp v Barclays
The court held that a bank's duty to execute a customer's clear payment instruction is not displaced by a general duty to protect them from APP fraud, narrowing the so-called Quincecare route for authorised payments.
The case pushed redress for transfer scams away from the courts and towards regulation and the ombudsman.
UK Supreme Court· Rule change
Confirmation of Payee rolled out
Banks began checking the payee name against the account before a transfer, showing a match, close-match or mismatch warning.
A mismatch is a genuine signal — but it only helps if the warning explains what it means.
Pay.UK· Rule change
Contingent Reimbursement Model Code launched
A voluntary industry code set expectations for reimbursing victims of authorised push payment fraud, signed by some but not all banks.
Reimbursement depended on which bank you used, which is precisely why the voluntary code was eventually replaced.
Lending Standards Board