What to do if your bank refuses to refund money lost to a scam

If your bank refuses to refund money you lost to a scam, do not treat the rejection as final. Report the scam immediately, then ask the bank - in writing - exactly why it said no. For many bank-transfer scams since October 2024, reimbursement rules may apply unless a specific exception is proven. If the bank still refuses, you can escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free.

A rejection is the bank's opening position, not the end of the story. Below: how the 2024 reimbursement rules work, why banks still say no, the mistakes that quietly weaken good complaints, and how to rebuild yours around a clean timeline and the right evidence.

Key takeaways

• Since 7 October 2024, banks generally must reimburse victims of authorised push payment (APP) scams sent by bank transfer - up to £85,000 - unless a specific exception applies.
• "You authorised the payment" is no longer a complete answer for in-scope scams. The bank carries the burden of justifying a refusal.
• Most complaints are won or lost on evidence and structure, not emotion: a clean timeline, the scam messages, and a direct answer to the bank's stated reason.
• If the bank still refuses, the Financial Ombudsman Service is free and independent, and you keep any compensation.
• Act quickly. There are time limits on both reimbursement claims and Ombudsman referrals.

Who this guide is for

This guide is for people who lost money to a scam and were then refused a refund by their bank or payment provider - especially scams where you were tricked into sending a payment yourself, such as:

• impersonation scams, where someone poses as your bank, the police, HMRC, or a company
• purchase scams, where you pay for goods or services that never arrive
• investment scams, such as fake platforms, fake "advisers," or fake crypto returns
• romance scams
• job and advance-fee scams
• "safe account" scams, where you are told to move money to protect it

It is especially relevant if the bank has told you any of the following, each of which is addressed below:

• "You authorised the payment."
• "We gave you warnings you ignored."
• "The payment didn't look unusual."
• "We couldn't recover the money."

The big shift: the 2024 reimbursement rules

This is the part most people do not know, and it changes how you should approach a refusal.

Since 7 October 2024, UK rules set by the Payment Systems Regulator require banks and payment firms to reimburse most victims of APP scams - scams where you were deceived into authorising a bank transfer yourself. In broad terms:

• Who's covered: scams paid by Faster Payments or CHAPS, in pounds, between UK accounts, where you were deceived into paying someone you thought was legitimate.
• How much: up to £85,000 per claim. Losses above the cap are not covered by this specific scheme, but may still be worth complaining about.
• How fast: the firm should reimburse within 5 business days of your claim, though it can pause the clock, up to 35 business days, if it genuinely needs more information.
• The burden is on the bank. It can only refuse or reduce reimbursement in limited situations, and it has to evidence them.

When a bank may still refuse under these rules:

• The "consumer standard of caution" exception - broadly, if you ignored a specific, targeted scam warning from your bank, did not report the scam promptly, did not respond to reasonable requests for information, or did not report it to the police when asked. The bar is meant to be high, and it does not apply to customers who are vulnerable.
• Gross negligence, which is a deliberately high bar and far more than simply being fooled.
• First-party fraud, meaning you were not actually scammed.
• A firm may apply a small excess, up to £100, but not to vulnerable customers.

When the scheme may not apply at all and older rules or a case-by-case approach are used instead: payments made before 7 October 2024; card payments; international payments or other currencies; and payments to your own accounts. "I'm in a dispute with a real trader" is usually treated as a civil dispute, not a scam.

Sources: the Payment Systems Regulator's APP scams reimbursement consolidated policy statement, its maximum reimbursement policy statement, and Financial Ombudsman Service guidance on APP fraud and authorised-payment scams. Figures and dates were last checked in June 2026. Rules and limits change, so check the current position.

Is your payment likely in scope? A quick self-check

You are more likely to be covered if all of these are true:

• the payment was a bank transfer, not a card payment, in pounds, to a UK account
• you were deceived into sending it, because you thought the recipient was genuine
• it was made on or after 7 October 2024
• you reported it within 13 months of the last payment

If that is you, a flat "you authorised it" refusal is not the end. It is something to challenge.

Why banks still refuse scam-refund complaints

Even under the new rules, banks reject complaints. Usually they lean on one of these, so it helps to know what each one really means.

"You authorised the payment"

For card-misuse this matters, but for an in-scope APP scam it is no longer a complete defence. You can authorise a payment and still be a scam victim the bank is required to reimburse. If this is the bank's main reason, ask which exception it is actually relying on.

"You ignored warnings"

The bank may say it showed an on-screen warning or a verification prompt. The key questions are whether the warning was specific and targeted to your situation - a generic "make sure you know who you're paying" banner is weaker than a tailored warning about your exact scam type - and whether you were being coached or pressured to dismiss it at the time.

"The transaction didn't look unusual"

This goes to whether the bank should have intervened. It is worth testing against your own normal activity. A large payment, to a brand-new payee, out of pattern, in quick succession, often should have looked unusual.

"We couldn't recover the money"

Recovery and reimbursement are two different things. That the money could not be clawed back from the fraudster does not decide whether the bank owes you reimbursement.

A rejection is not a strong answer. It is just the bank's answer. The job now is to test it.

The biggest mistakes people make after a scam

Good complaints are routinely weakened by how they are presented.

1. Reporting too late. Delay weakens both recovery and your reimbursement claim, and can hand the bank an exception. Report as soon as you suspect a scam.
2. Telling a vague story instead of a timeline. "They confused me and I panicked" may be true, but it is hard to test. The bank needs the sequence.
3. Not preserving the proof. People describe the scam but delete the texts, emails, call logs, fake invoices and dashboards that show how the pressure worked.
4. Arguing fairness in the abstract. "This is unfair" is weaker than "here is the exact point the bank got wrong."
5. Not answering the bank's actual reason. If it cites a warning, address the warning. If it cites an exception, ask it to evidence the exception.

"You authorised it" does not mean the complaint is hopeless

For most scams, yes, you did make the payment. Under the old way of thinking, banks treated that as the end of the conversation. Under the 2024 rules, it is not. The real questions are whether your payment is in scope and, if the bank is refusing, which exception it is relying on and whether it can actually prove it. That is why the surrounding evidence matters so much.

What evidence actually helps

You rarely need a dramatic "smoking gun." You need a complete, consistent record.

Most useful:

• bank statements showing the disputed payment or payments
• screenshots of texts, emails, WhatsApp or app chats, and call logs
• screenshots of fake websites, dashboards, invoices or profiles, if still available
• proof of who the scammer claimed to be, such as a fake bank, merchant, or official body
• short notes on what happened immediately before each payment
• your complaint to the bank and its response or final response
• any fraud or crime reference number, such as Action Fraud

Often missing, but valuable:

• the exact wording of any warning screen you saw
• whether the payee was new or unusual for you
• whether the payment was larger than your normal pattern
• evidence you were under time pressure or coached live during the payment
• anything showing you are vulnerable, such as health, age, or a difficult period, which affects how the rules apply

How to write a clear complaint timeline

A strong timeline is clean, factual, and in order.

1. How contact began
2. What the scammer claimed
3. Why it looked believable at the time
4. When each payment was made
5. What happened immediately after each payment
6. When you became suspicious
7. When you contacted the bank
8. What the bank did next

Be specific.

Good: "At 10:14 on 4 March I received a call from someone claiming to be my bank's fraud team. They said my account was 'under attack' and I had to move my money to a 'safe account' immediately, and stayed on the line while I did it."

Weak: "Someone called and confused me so I sent the money."

Both may be true, but the first gives the bank, and later the Ombudsman, something it can actually test.

What to ask the bank to explain

If you have been rejected, push the bank to be specific. Ask it, in writing, to explain:

• which reimbursement exception, if any, it is relying on, and what evidence supports it
• what exact warning was shown, when, and why it considers it sufficient in your situation
• whether the transaction pattern differed from your normal activity
• whether the payee or payment size triggered any fraud checks
• what recovery steps it took after your report, and whether there were any delays

These questions expose whether the refusal is real case analysis or generic wording.

How to respond to common rejection reasons

• "You ignored warnings": explain your state of mind, how the scammer manufactured urgency, whether the warning was generic rather than tailored, and whether you were being coached while you paid.
• "It looked normal": point to anything unusual, such as a large amount, a new payee, out-of-pattern behaviour, or multiple rapid transfers.
• "We couldn't recover it": note that recovery and reimbursement are different questions.
• "You authorised it": ask which exception applies, since authorisation alone no longer settles an in-scope claim.
• Generic wording: bring it back to your facts. Standard language is not a case-specific explanation.

What outcome to ask for

Be explicit about what you want. That might include:

• reimbursement of the disputed amount, subject to the rules and any cap
• related charges or interest caused by the scam
• recognition of distress or inconvenience caused by poor handling
• a clear explanation of the bank's decision and its fraud response

State the ask plainly. Do not bury it at the end.

When and how to escalate

If the bank gives its final response and you still think it has not addressed the real points, you can escalate.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is free, independent, and you keep any compensation it awards - you do not need a paid company to use it. Before you go, check you can answer "yes" to all of these:

• Is my timeline clear and dated?
• Have I attached the key screenshots and statements?
• Have I answered the bank's actual rejection reason?
• Have I explained why its analysis is incomplete or wrong?
• Have I asked which reimbursement exception it is relying on?

Mind the time limits: you generally have 6 months from the bank's final response to take a complaint to FOS, and reimbursement claims have their own 13-month window from the last payment. Check the current limits because they change.

Source: Financial Ombudsman Service guidance on time limits, last checked in June 2026.

A simple complaint structure you can reuse

1. Short summary - what happened and what outcome you want.
2. Timeline - the events, in order, with dates.
3. Why the bank got it wrong - address its reasons directly; ask it to evidence any exception.
4. Evidence attached - list the documents and screenshots.
5. Outcome requested - be explicit.

How HeyRefund can help

Most scam-refund complaints do not fail because the person is wrong. They fail because the facts are scattered: the consumer knows exactly what happened, but the bank sees a messy file and a generic reason to say no.

HeyRefund helps you:

• build a clean, dated timeline
• spot the evidence gaps before the bank does
• organise the screenshots, statements and references
• turn the rejection letter into specific points to answer, including asking the bank to evidence any exception it relies on

You can do all of this yourself for free. HeyRefund just makes it faster and clearer. If the bank has already said no, the next step usually is not to say the same thing louder. It is to present the case better.