Younis had bought things before on the social media marketplace, so made a faster payment and ignored the warnings.
This case study was developed with the help of the Payment System Regulator, to illustrate the FPS and CHAPS reimbursement rules.
What happened
When Younis wanted to buy a PlayStation, he looked on a social media marketplace where he’d had a good experience of buying goods before. He found one he liked for a good price.
The seller asked Younis to make a ‘faster payment’, which he did quite happily as he was used to paying that way.
When he tried to pay a written warning appeared, saying that scammers operated on this social media marketplace. It clearly stated that you should never make a Faster Payment for goods without receiving them first.
However, because Younis had often used that marketplace successfully, he ignored the warning and went ahead with the payment.
The PlayStation never arrived. Younis contacted the seller and asked for a refund but the seller blocked him.
Assessment under the FPS and CHAPS reimbursement rules
We were satisfied that Younis had fallen victim to a scam and wasn’t involved in a civil dispute with the seller. And, the warning that Younis read appeared to meet the minimum standard. That is, it was:
- specific to the scam
- specific to the transaction
- appeared during the payment journey
The next thing we’d consider is Younis’ actions in moving past the warning.
Younis read and understood the warning. But, because of his previous experience, he still didn’t believe he was at risk of being scammed. His experience of buying goods successfully on that social media marketplace was a more powerful factor in his decision making.
Based on the PSR's rules, that seems reasonable.
So, although Younis acted carelessly by not taking notice of the warning, we would be unlikely to find that his behaviour was grossly negligent.