‘High proportion' of APP scam victims getting their money back under new rules
The rules, overseen by the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), require banks to give people their money back when they have been tricked into transferring it to criminals.
An authorised push payment (APP) reimbursement limit of £85,000 has been applied under the rules, although banks can choose to go further than this and repay higher amounts.
Posting a 'snapshot' of what the regulator has seen so far, its managing director David Geale said on the PSR's website: 'We are pleased with what we've seen in the data and heard from stakeholders in the first few months, which demonstrates that the policy has been successfully implemented – and more consumers have been protected.
'This is testament to the efforts of industry to deliver the best outcomes for victims of APP scams and work with us to resolve any issues.'
Under the new code, reimbursement costs are split between the sending and receiving banks – giving the receiving firm an added incentive to stop the scam happening in the first place.
Mr Geale said: 'A high proportion of APP scam victims are being reimbursed consistently across a larger number of PSPs (payment service providers).
'And while it is too early to draw firm conclusions based on the period covered by this data, we have not seen evidence of spikes in claim volumes that some had feared would occur under the policy.
'Additionally, now that both parties in the payment journey (the sending PSP and the receiving PSP) share the cost of reimbursing victims, there is a much stronger incentive for all PSPs to prevent APP scams from occurring in the first place.
'We are pleased to see PSPs starting to collaborate more in the effort to fight this fraud.'
Looking at compliance data reported by payment service providers, the regulator said that in the first three months of the initiative, 86% of money lost to APP scams was returned to victims, totalling around £27 million.
The regulator said it is not possible to make direct comparisons with data from before its policy due to methodology changes, however 'we note that reimbursement for consumers in 2023 was 68% (by value), as per UK Finance's annual fraud report 2024 data'.
Before the mandatory rules came into force, many banks had signed up to a voluntary reimbursement agreement. However, consumer campaigners raised concerns about banks not applying this consistently.
The PSR said that before the policy went live, some organisations were concerned that there would be a sharp rise in the number of APP scam claims.
But, on its website, it said: 'We have seen no evidence of any increase to date.'
However, claim volumes 'have steadily increased each month and we expect this to continue in the short to medium term as victims become more aware of the policy,' according to the PSR.
Firms can opt to apply an excess of up to £100 when reimbursing customers, but this cannot be applied to vulnerable customers. Some firms have waived the excess.
Some APP fraud victims may also be refused reimbursement if they are deemed to have been 'grossly negligent'.
The PSR's website said: 'Just 2% of total claims were rejected because the consumer standard of caution has not been met. We also heard from industry stakeholders that they did not see a significant shift in customer behaviour as a result of the policy.
'However, we are seeing differences in how frequently firms are applying the exemptions. This is backed up in the data we are seeing: only 23% of firms that received a claim in the period used this exception as a reason for rejecting reimbursement.
'We're working with firms and other stakeholders, including the Financial Ombudsman Service, and will keep under review whether more clarity is needed on when this exception should be applied.'
Rocio Concha, Which? director of policy and advocacy, said: 'Which? campaigned for years to make reimbursement mandatory, so it's encouraging to see that the new rules appear to be having a positive impact, with more APP scam victims getting their money back and a more consistent approach from banks and payment providers.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
UK car market set for strongest year since before Covid pandemic
The UK's car market is on track for its strongest year since before the coronavirus pandemic, according to new analysis. Online vehicle marketplace Auto Trader said it expects two million new and 7.75 million used cars to be sold across the whole of 2025, as older, budget-friendly models drive growth. The total of 9.75 million would be a 3% increase on last year's figure of 9.5 million (1.9 million new and 7.6 million used). It would also be the highest annual total since 10.3 million (2.4 million new and 7.9 million used) in 2019, before the virus crisis began. Auto Trader said there was a surge in demand for used cars aged five to 10 years. It predicted that by the end of the year there will be 10.1 million of these cars on UK roads, up from 8.7 million in 2017. Vehicles at least a decade old are expected to make up 26% of the 32.8 million cars licensed in the UK, compared with 23% in 2019. Auto Trader said disruption to new car production caused by the pandemic means there is a shortage of cars aged three to five years. Ian Plummer, Auto Trader commercial director, said: 'UK car sales are on course to reach their highest level for six years, which is testament to the underlying strength of consumer demand. 'We've seen more than half a billion visits to our website in the first half of this year – an all-time high. 'What's particularly striking is the surge in appetite for older, budget-friendly vehicles – especially those aged five to 10 years – which are now the fastest-selling part of the market. 'The Covid effect is still playing through the UK car market and will continue to do so for years to come.' Nearly a third of all Auto Trader advert views are for cars priced under £7,000. Sales of used cars in 2025 are up 2% year-on-year but the full-year for new car registrations is forecast to be flat.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
David James hopes Alexander Isak can help Liverpool win multiple trophies
Former goalkeeper David James believes Liverpool need striker Alexander Isak to be able to win trophies at home and in Europe. The ex-England international admits the forward may not be 'the most viable signing' due to Newcastle's £150million price tag, but the Reds' long-term interest in the Sweden international shows how valuable they think he could be to them. Extricating Isak from St James' Park will be far from straightforward, even though the player has not joined his team-mates for their pre-season tour of South Korea and is privately telling people he wants to move to Anfield. However, James said Liverpool will have done their homework and know exactly what difference he can make to a team which won the Premier League in head coach Arne Slot's first season, but came up disappointing short in the Champions League. 'Arne is in the most wonderful position to be able to have to defend titles,' James told the PA news agency after surprising a St Helens walking football team as part of an initiative run by Carlsberg. 'Liverpool will give it the best they can, but there is a bigger carrot of 'can you be dominant in Europe?'. 'Bringing in someone like Isak is not the most viable signing, but when you want to be achieving on multiple levels then you are going to need that squad. 'If Isak comes in – if – then it will be because Liverpool will feel they need him rather than having the money just to get someone. 'What is interesting here is when you look at (Mohamed) Salah last season, he scored the goals but his assist numbers were what got me. 'How much influence he has on players to be better than the numbers they were recording last season will be exciting – and that includes Isak if it goes through. 'These players are coming into an environment where they are at least expected to improve and as Liverpool are currently Premier League champions then improvement would be adding another trophy hopefully.' Liverpool's owners Fenway Sports Group have undertaken an unprecedented spending spree this summer with almost £300m bringing in club-record signing Florian Wirtz, Hugo Ekitike, Jeremie Frimpong and Milos Kerkez. All are under the age of 24 and have helped reduce the age profile of the squad while also being a long-term investment. While Isak would be the summer's marquee signing, there are concerns Liverpool could be leaving themselves short at centre-back with Virgil van Dijk, Ibrahima Konate and Joe Gomez – who returned home from the Far East to have treatment on an injury – the only senior players for that position. They have been linked with Crystal Palace's Marc Guehi, who has a year left on his contract, but currently have not made any move. James, however, is not too concerned at present. 'You'd think their offence will always be better than the opposition's defence and they will be able to out-score other teams except for the occasional game,' he added. 'The idea Liverpool have to have the best defence would be wonderful, but I don't think they have to rush into buying someone. It might be something that happens in January. 'The end of the Champions League campaign is naturally when you come up against better teams and your defensive issues can be called into question. 'I imagine they will have so much success anyway they won't feel they have to desperately go out and buy someone and looking at the signings there doesn't appear to be any desperation so far.' :: David James partnered with Carlsberg to surprise members of the St Helen's Walking football team, forming part of the brewer's initiative to give more people access to the more of the best.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves can raise taxes as much as she likes, but it won't bring in any more money
The IMF has warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves that she must make tough choices to cut the UK's deficit, potentially including some combination of raising taxes on working people, abandoning the pensions triple lock or charging for the NHS. The first of these options – raising taxes – is considered politically the most likely. After all, Labour MPs didn't even agree to cuts to winter fuel payments. It's impossible to imagine them agreeing to cut the NHS, and abandoning the triple lock seems like political suicide. Yet it's highly doubtful whether raising tax rates further will produce any more tax revenue out of the UK economy. Even as matters stand, taxes are scheduled to go higher than they've ever been since World War II, and to be around 37½ percent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament. But that considerably understates the situation. Prior to 2021/22 they'd only ever once been above 35 percent of GDP since the 1950s, in 1969/70, and then for only one year before falling back sharply. Thereafter, until the 2020s, it was rare for them to be above 33½ per cent of GDP. We aren't merely at a record. We are at an out-of-the-park record scheduled to be sustained for an absolutely unprecedented period of time. The chances of the UK economy delivering even the tax levels already scheduled are slim, let alone imagining taxes could be raised a lot further. Yet despite these astonishing record-high taxes, the economy is still running a large deficit of over 5 per cent of GDP. Remember the 'Maastricht Convergence Criteria' requiring budget deficits to be no higher than 3 per cent of GDP? Well, we're way above that. When the deficit exceeded 6 per cent of GDP in the 1990s we had a significant fiscal consolidation under Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke. Yet at that time the UK's national debt was under 40 per cent of GDP. Now it's over 100 per cent. Our situation is way worse than it was in the early 1990s. We need a fiscal consolidation to address that 5 per cent deficit. But the current thinking appears to be that all of that deficit cut will come from tax rises. Indeed, possibly more than all of it, because spending will probably go up further. To balance the books we'd need to rise from that record 37½ per cent of GDP spending to over 42½ per cent. Add in a percentage point for further spending rises and we'd be over 43½ per cent or fully 10 percentage points of tax higher than the UK has ever produced on a sustained basis in well over 80 years. One key reason tax takes top out at some point relative to GDP is that they destroy growth. Over the long-term having a high share of tax in GDP damages long-term growth – each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent – which in the UK's case would mean reducing its sustainable growth rate to zero. In the short-term, raising taxes often triggers recessions, bringing down tax revenues. That loss of tax revenues as growth peters out, or outright recession ensues, means that tax-based fiscal consolidations typically don't work. If you have a high deficit, raising taxes is almost never a way to cut that deficit – even if it were a Good Thing to have higher tax in itself, it simply doesn't work in that situation. The normal advice the IMF and similar bodies used to provide in fiscal consolidations was that they should be predominantly spending cuts-based. The IMF often used a rule of thumb of about two thirds spending cuts to one third tax rises. The EU used much the same rule of thumb in the Eurozone crisis era austerity programmes. However, the most successful consolidations – the ones where the deficit falls and stays down, with debt dropping away relative to GDP over time – tend to have higher ratios of spending cuts, of around 75 to 80 per cent to 20 to 25 per cent tax rises. We need at least that ratio in the UK now, if not higher. But that is not what Labour backbench MPs will ever agree to.
