Financial Ombudsman Service guidance says that deception (being tricked into authorising a payment) is the key factor when assessing protection or reimbursement for authorised payments, rather than whether the payer pressed a 'confirm' button.

Verified by Lenz · Jun 15, 2026

The Short Version

FOS guidance substantially supports this claim. In authorised-payment scam cases, the Ombudsman focuses on whether the customer was misled or deceived into making the payment, not simply on the fact that the customer technically authorised it by pressing confirm. However, reimbursement is not determined by deception alone; FOS also considers the firm's warnings, checks, and the overall circumstances.

Caveats

The wording slightly overstates the position: deception is central, but not the sole deciding factor in FOS assessments.
Legal authorisation still matters for payment execution under the Payment Services Regulations; that is a different question from whether FOS considers reimbursement fair.
Outcome-specific facts matter, including the bank's fraud warnings, intervention steps, and the customer's vulnerability or conduct.

The Receipts

Fraud and scams
Financial Ombudsman Service
Disputed transactions
Financial Ombudsman Service
Decision Reference DRN3636250
Financial Ombudsman Service
APP fraud and other scams involving authorised payments or transfers
Financial Ombudsman Service
CP18/16: Authorised push payment fraud – extending the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service
Financial Conduct AuthoritySep 6, 2018
Financial Ombudsman Service: Our homepage – Financial Ombudsman Service
Financial Ombudsman Service
Banking and payments
Financial Ombudsman Service
PS19/23: Authorised push payment scams – Consumer redress
Financial Conduct AuthorityDec 6, 2019
Authorized Push Payment (APP) Scam
Payment Systems Regulator (via ACI Worldwide summary)Jun 7, 2023
Who's afraid of the FOS?
Tenet LawJan 13, 2020

+ 15 more sources — see the full list on Lenz

Filed Under

Financial Ombudsman Service