UK Fraud Reimbursement Rule Under Scrutiny

The UK’s 13-month deadline for reporting authorised push payment scams is facing renewed calls for an urgent review, after consumer advocates warned the rule can leave some victims without protection.

The time limit is part of the Mandatory Reimbursement Requirement introduced by the Payment Systems Regulator in October 2024. Under the framework, banks and payment service providers must repay eligible victims up to £85,000 within five working days, as long as the scam is reported within 13 months of the last payment.

National Trading Standards challenges the 13-month deadline

National Trading Standards has argued the reporting window should be reformed or removed. It says the current design does not cover all consumers, particularly those caught in sophisticated investment fraud.

In those cases, the organisation says, victims may not realise they have been scammed until long after the final transfer was made, meaning the 13-month clock can expire before the fraud is discovered.

Money Box case highlights timing gap for investment scams

A case discussed on BBC Radio 4’s Money Box involved a victim who lost £20,000 in an investment scam in October 2024. The victim only discovered the fraud in March 2026, which was beyond the 13-month reporting window measured from the last payment.

In that case, Lloyds Bank initially offered only a partial refund, citing the 13-month limit. After media intervention, the bank later provided a full refund.

Industry and regulator responses

UK Finance, which represents banks, said only a small number of cases fall outside the 13-month deadline. It also pointed to the option for customers to escalate complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

UK Finance said the Financial Ombudsman Service has no time limit for claims and can require reimbursements of up to £455,000.

The Payment Systems Regulator has acknowledged that recognising a scam can take time, especially in investment fraud. It said it expects firms to take account of individual circumstances when handling cases.

Debate over when the reporting period should start

The central question in the current debate is whether the 13-month period should run from the date a victim discovers the scam, rather than from the date of the last payment. Supporters of change say that approach would better reflect how some frauds unfold and could strengthen consumer protection for complex cases.

For now, the rule remains tied to the last payment date, and the dispute over its fairness continues as consumer groups, banks, and the regulator weigh how to balance clear deadlines with the realities of delayed discovery.