APP scam reimbursement: UK eligibility and claim evidence

APP scam reimbursement can cover money you were tricked into transferring between UK bank accounts through Faster Payments or CHAPS, subject to eligibility rules and exceptions. Report the scam to your payment provider immediately and preserve evidence. These UK protections do not apply simply because a Canadian customer has suffered a similar loss.

• Authorising a transfer does not automatically rule out a UK scam reimbursement claim.
• The payment route and date matter, not just the scammer’s story.
• A reimbursement claim and a complaint about its handling are different steps.
• News about another customer’s refund does not establish your own entitlement.

Which payments qualify for APP scam reimbursement?

An authorised push payment, or APP, scam happens when deception persuades someone to send money themselves. A criminal might impersonate a bank employee, invent an investment opportunity or request payment using a fraudulent invoice. The account holder approves the transfer, but the reason for sending it is false.

According to the Payment Systems Regulator’s guidance reviewed in October 2026, mandatory protections cover eligible UK transfers made on or after 7 October 2024. They concern transfers between UK bank accounts using Faster Payments or CHAPS. The arrangements cover individuals, microenterprises and charities, with provider exclusions described in the regulator’s guidance.

That geographical boundary matters for this site’s Canadian readers. A transfer from a Canadian account does not become eligible for this UK scheme because the scam resembles a British case. This article explains the UK process, not Canadian reimbursement rights.

Why does the payment method matter?

A card purchase, cash withdrawal and bank transfer are not interchangeable when assessing protection. Citizens Advice explains that these particular reimbursement requirements do not cover BACS, Swift or transfers sent abroad. A different payment route may require a different claim rather than proving that no help is available.

The distinction also matters when someone has accessed your account without permission. That is different from persuading you to approve a transfer. Describe exactly what happened instead of choosing a label that seems more likely to produce a refund.

How much could the provider reimburse?

The Payment Systems Regulator states that the maximum mandatory reimbursement is £85,000, although a provider can choose to reimburse more. An optional claim excess can be up to £100. It is not necessarily deducted by every firm, and the regulator says it cannot be applied to vulnerable consumers.

Those figures describe the scheme, not a personal refund quotation. The provider still needs to establish which payments qualify and whether an exception applies. Recovering funds from the recipient account and reimbursing an eligible customer are related but distinct questions.

What could affect eligibility?

The regulator identifies complicity in fraud and gross negligence as exceptions. It describes gross negligence as a demanding threshold, rather than an ordinary mistake, and says this exception does not apply to vulnerable consumers. A decision needs to address the circumstances rather than merely observe that the customer pressed the payment button.

Explain any circumstances that affected your ability to recognise or resist the scam at the time. For a related discussion about supporting someone whose health affects banking, see our guide to helping a spouse with dementia and card fraud. Card claims themselves follow different protections.

What information helps when reporting the scam?

The Financial Ombudsman Service advises contacting the bank or payment provider immediately and retaining correspondence with the scammer. Reporting promptly gives the provider an opportunity to act; assembling a perfect evidence file first can create an unnecessary delay. Use an established contact route rather than details supplied by the suspected criminal.

1. Identify the affected transfers using the dates, recipient details and transaction references available in your records.
2. Explain who contacted you, what they claimed and why you believed the payment was necessary.
3. Preserve messages, emails, invoices and screenshots that show the deception.
4. Describe warnings you saw and any pressure or instructions to conceal information.
5. Keep the claim reference and a dated record of subsequent conversations with the provider.

A clear timeline is more useful than a long accusation without supporting records. Distinguish what you know from what you suspect. If you cannot explain how the criminal obtained your information, say so rather than guessing.

Messages about protecting your savings can provide important context. Our explanation of a bank impersonation scam involving a new-payment warning discusses the pressure behind these requests. Save the original exchange where possible, not just your recollection of it.

How long can the reimbursement decision take?

Citizens Advice says eligible customers should usually receive reimbursement within 5 working days, although the process can take up to 35 working days. A longer investigation does not, by itself, tell you whether the claim will succeed. Ask what information remains outstanding and keep copies of what you provide.

There is a difference between the provider assessing your claim and someone promising to retrieve the money for a fee. A call referring to your recent loss is not proof that the caller represents your bank. Verify the contact independently before sharing information or considering another payment.

If the criminal used a familiar voice, include that detail in your account of events. Our guide to AI voice cloning scams and payment checks explains why recognition alone is not reliable verification.

What if the bank refuses your claim?

Ask for a written explanation that addresses the payment method, applicable rules and evidence. If you disagree, use the provider’s complaints process rather than repeatedly opening identical fraud reports. Explain the specific part of the decision you believe is wrong.

The Financial Ombudsman Service can consider complaints about how banks and payment providers handled fraud and scams. It does not investigate the crime itself, but it can review the financial business’s actions. Its guidance also says uncertainty about precisely how you were defrauded need not stop you bringing a complaint.

Earlier transfers need separate consideration: Citizens Advice notes that the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code may matter for payments before 7 October 2024. Likewise, a genuine disagreement about defective goods is not automatically APP fraud. A headline about another person’s successful case cannot replace this assessment of your own payment and circumstances.

Informational content only, not financial advice.