/security

News and resources on cyber and physical threats to banks and fintechs worldwide.

Supreme Court rules in favour of Barclays over APP reimbursement claim

Barclays Bank has overturned an appeals court ruling that rendered it potentially liable for a £700,000 authorised push payment scam against one of its customers.

  12 3 comments

Supreme Court rules in favour of Barclays over APP reimbursement claim

Editorial

This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community.

Barclays customer Fiona Philipp sued the bank over the losses, arguing that the UK lender had failed in its duty of care by transferring the funds to scammers in the United Arab Emirates. Philips' case rested on whether the bank had reasonable grounds to suspect the transfers were fraudulent in nature.

Barclays took the case to the UK Supreme Court, which voted unanimously in favour of the bank.

In a written ruling, Judge George Leggatt stated: "Where the customer has authorised and instructed the bank to make a payment, the bank must carry out the instruction promptly.

"It is not for the bank to concern itself with the wisdom or risks of its customer's payment decisions."

The case is significant in that the UK's banks have been pilloried over failures to get to grips with APP fraud, in which customers are tricked into authorising payments to scammers. APP fraud has quickly become one of the most significant types of fraud in the UK, with losses totalling nearly £500 million in the last year.

Consumer groups and politicians have been clamouring for banks to tackle what is viewed as a growing epidemic and to speed up the process of reimbursement for blameless victims.

Under new regulations set to come into force next year, both sending and receiving banks running transactions over the UK's Faster Payments scheme will be expected to split the cost of reimbursements in the case of APP fraud. In drawing up the new rules, the Payment Systems regulator has yet to provide additional guidance on the customer standard of caution (gross negligence) and publication of all legal instruments to enorce the new regime.

Sponsored New Report – The Future of AI in Financial Services 2025

Related Company

Keywords

Comments: (3)

Ketharaman Swaminathan

Ketharaman Swaminathan Founder and CEO at GTM360 Marketing Solutions

YaaY kudos to UK Supreme Court for overturning senseless Drunk Under Lamp Post regulation in APP Scam.

Having implemented FPS for a Top 5 UK bank, I'm aware that a bank is liable for a fine if it DOES NOT execute a payment authorized by a customer. Going by that, I've been aghast at widespread demands for banks to compensate customers for processing payments authorized by victims of APP Scam. 

When most people seem to have forgotten the basics of payments, I'm glad that the UK Supreme Court remembered it.

I hope this verdict sets the stage for the implementation of my Three Strike Rule To Eliminate Cybercrime.

A Finextra member 

I may be naive here, but if the target account of the APP scam is from a UK bank, the bank should know the verified name and address of the account holder. They could then pass this onto the police who can then prosecute the scammer. If the bank does not know the verified name and address of the account holder then it is negligent and the scammed person would have a case against them.

When I opened my first bank account it was done in person with proof of age, address and with a reference stating I was suitable to have an account.

It seems these old ways made banking more secure.

 

Ketharaman Swaminathan

Ketharaman Swaminathan Founder and CEO at GTM360 Marketing Solutions

Oh, sure, the bank surely knows the verified name and address of the scammer but, for reasons I highlighted in Why Is It So Hard To Catch Cybercriminals?, there are many a slip between the cup and the lip. 

New Event Report – Natural Capital FinanceFinextra PromotedNew Event Report – Natural Capital Finance