Bank of Scotland plc · DRN-6123450

The complaint Ms B complains that Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax (‘Halifax’) won’t reimburse the funds she lost when she says she fell victim to a scam. What happened Ms B says that in June and July 2022 she made two payments which totalled £600 to an individual who agreed to provide photography and videography services at a ceremony due to be held in August 2022. The individual, who I’ll refer to as ‘M’ in this decision, didn’t attend the ceremony and, without notifying Ms B, sent a freelance photographer instead. Ms B says that M didn’t provide any photos and videos. The freelancer told Ms B that they had the footage from the day but wouldn’t release it as M hadn’t paid them. Ms B raised a scam claim with Halifax in 2025. Halifax said Ms B has a civil dispute with M. Ms B was unhappy with Halifax’s response and brought a complaint to this service. The investigator who considered Ms B’s response didn’t recommend that it be upheld. She also said Ms B has a civil dispute with M which her bank isn’t responsible for. Ms B didn’t agree with the investigator’s findings and asked for a final decision. She disputed that she received a service as she hasn’t been provided with any photos or video footage. 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’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable, I am required to take into account relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, and codes of practice; and, where appropriate, I must also take into account what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. 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 Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. But there are circumstances when it might be fair and reasonable for a firm to reimburse a customer even when they have authorised a payment. Halifax was a signatory to the CRM Code at the time the payments were made. Under this code, the starting principle is that a firm should reimburse a customer who is the victim of an authorised push payment (APP) scam, except in limited circumstances. But the CRM Code only applies if the definition of an APP scam, as set out in it, is met. I have considered whether Ms B’s claim falls within the scope of the CRM Code, which defines an APP scam as: ...a transfer of funds executed across Faster Payments…where:

-- 1 of 2 --

(i) The Customer intended to transfer funds to another person, but was instead deceived into transferring the funds to a different person; or (ii) (ii) The Customer transferred funds to another person for what they believed were legitimate purposes but which were in fact fraudulent. The CRM Code is explicit that it doesn’t apply to all push payments. It says: “This Code does not apply to: (b) 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”. To decide whether Ms B is victim of an APP scam as defined in the CRM Code I have considered: - The purpose of the payments and whether Ms B thought this purpose was legitimate. - The purpose the recipient (M) had in mind at the time of the payments, and whether this broadly aligned with what Ms B understood to have been the purpose of the payment. - Whether there was a significant difference in these purposes, and if so, whether it could be said this was as a result of dishonest deception. Ms B thought she was engaging the services of a photographer/videographer to attend an event for a five-hour period. While M himself didn’t attend the ceremony, he sent a freelancer who attended the ceremony and took photos/video footage. The freelancer has confirmed to Ms B that the work was done, but nothing has been released to Ms B because the freelancer hasn’t been paid. So I think both parties had the same purpose in mind at the time of payment but for some reason no payment has been made to the freelancer and Ms B hasn’t received the end product. There are many reasons why this might have happened, including a potential disagreement between M and the freelancer or financial difficulties when the invoice was due. As I said above, the CRM Code doesn’t apply when a payment has been made to a legitimate supplier, but the service isn’t provided. And Ms B has not given any evidence of fraudulent intent. Whilst I agree with Ms B’s comment that the outcome here is the same as if she had been scammed, in that she hasn’t received what she paid for, this doesn’t mean that the CRM Code definition of an APP scam has been met. I recognise that it was important to Ms B to have a record of the day and that she has paid money and not received what she expected. Ms B has explained the stress and upset this has caused her. But, for the reasons set out, I can’t fairly hold Halifax responsible for her loss. My final decision I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms B to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Jay Hadfield Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --