Scammed Into Sending Money? Your Right to a Bank Refund Under the New Reimbursement Rules (UK)

Being scammed into sending money is one of the most gut-wrenching experiences there is — a fraudster convinces you to authorise a transfer yourself, so the payment looks legitimate and the money vanishes in minutes. For years, banks routinely refused to refund these losses because you pressed "send". That changed on 7 October 2024. Under mandatory reimbursement rules, banks and payment firms must now refund most victims of authorised push payment (APP) scams — often within five business days. Many people never claim because they do not realise the protection exists. Here is how it works, and how to put your bank on notice in writing.

What Counts as an APP Scam

An authorised push payment scam is where a fraudster tricks you into authorising a bank transfer to an account they control. Because you approved the payment, it is not the same as a stolen card or an unauthorised transaction — but the reimbursement rules were created precisely to cover this gap. Common examples include:

• Impersonation scams — a fake message or call from your "bank", HMRC, the police, or a "safe account" team telling you to move money urgently.
• Purchase scams where the item and the seller are entirely fake (as opposed to a real trader who lets you down — see the exclusions below).
• Investment, romance, and job scams that build trust before asking you to transfer funds.
• Invoice and mandate scams — a fraudster intercepts or spoofs a genuine invoice and diverts your payment to their account.

The Reimbursement Rules — the Headline Protection

The rules were introduced by the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) and apply to payments made over Faster Payments or CHAPS — the everyday bank-to-bank rails used for UK transfers in pounds. The key points:

• Your bank must reimburse you for a qualifying APP scam loss — the starting position is that you get your money back.
• Up to £85,000 per claim. This cap covers the large majority of scams. (It was originally proposed at £415,000 and reduced to £85,000 before launch.)
• Usually within 5 business days. A firm can "stop the clock" to investigate where it needs more information, but there is a hard backstop of 35 business days to reach a decision.
• You claim once, from your own bank. Behind the scenes the cost is split 50/50 between the bank that sent the money and the bank that received it — but that is an arrangement between the two firms. You never have to chase the receiving bank yourself.

One point worth knowing for context: the regulator making these rules, the PSR, is in the process of being merged into the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The reimbursement rules themselves remain fully in force through that transition — but the body enforcing them is changing.

When Can a Bank Refuse or Reduce a Refund?

Reimbursement is the default, not an absolute guarantee. A firm can decline or reduce a refund in limited circumstances, and the burden is on the bank to prove one applies — not on you to prove you were careful:

• Gross negligence. A bank can refuse if you ignored a clear, specific warning and acted with gross negligence. This is a deliberately high bar — far more than simply being careless or fooled by a convincing scam. Being deceived by a professional fraudster is not, by itself, gross negligence.
• Vulnerable customers are protected. The gross-negligence exception cannot be applied to vulnerable consumers at all.
• An optional excess. A firm may apply an excess of up to £100 per claim — but it is optional, each firm sets its own figure (some apply none), and it can never be charged to a vulnerable customer.

What the Rules Do Not Cover

The scheme is powerful but not unlimited. It generally does not apply to:

• Civil disputes — where you paid a genuine business that then failed to deliver, or delivered faulty goods. That is a dispute with a real trader, not a scam; your route there is a chargeback, Section 75, or the Consumer Rights Act, not APP reimbursement.
• First-party fraud — where the customer is knowingly involved in the fraud. Honest victims tricked into paying an account the fraudster controls are not caught by this; the test is whether the destination account was controlled by or for the scammer.
• International payments and payments made on other rails — card payments, cash, cheques, and transfers to crypto exchanges are outside these particular rules.
• "On-us" transfers between accounts at the same bank are not yet mandatorily covered — the regulator has asked firms to extend protection to these voluntarily, but it is not guaranteed.

The 13-Month Deadline

You must make your claim within 13 months of the last fraudulent payment. Report the scam to your bank as soon as you realise what has happened — and to Action Fraud (or Police Scotland) — because acting fast gives the bank the best chance of freezing or recovering funds before they disappear.

How This Differs From the Old Voluntary Code

Before October 2024, reimbursement was governed by a voluntary arrangement — the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) Code — that only some banks had signed up to, put all the liability on the sending bank, and produced inconsistent results. The current rules are mandatory across virtually all firms using Faster Payments and CHAPS, split the cost between both banks, and set a binding cap, timeframe, and process. If a bank tells you it "doesn't refund authorised payments", that stance is out of date.

What Your Complaint Letter Should Say

Report the scam to your bank first — usually by phone, immediately. If it refuses to reimburse you, or drags its feet, a firm written complaint that shows you know the rules is what moves things. Your letter should:

• Set out what happened — the date, the amount, who you believed you were paying, and how you were deceived.
• State that this was an authorised push payment scam made over Faster Payments or CHAPS to an account controlled by the fraudster.
• Assert your right to reimbursement under the mandatory APP scam reimbursement rules in force since 7 October 2024.
• Address gross negligence head-on — explain the steps you took and note that being deceived by a convincing scam is not gross negligence, and that the burden is on the bank to prove otherwise.
• Flag any vulnerability that applies to you, since it removes the gross-negligence exception and any excess.
• Give a clear deadline for a full response and confirm you will escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service if the claim is not resolved.

If Your Bank Still Says No

If the bank rejects your claim or does not resolve your complaint within eight weeks, you can refer it — for free — to the Financial Ombudsman Service. You normally have six months from the bank's final response to do so. The Ombudsman is independent and will look at whether the bank applied the reimbursement rules correctly and whether it was fair to refuse; it decides each case on its facts, so a strong, well-documented complaint that engages with the rules gives you the best footing.

A final word: these rules are still evolving. The regulator has signalled a review that could revisit the cap, the excess, and the scope, so it is always worth checking the current position — but the core protection above is what applies today.