How new bank transfer scam protections could help you
Banks must now refund up to £85,000 of losses from authorised push payment fraud

Scam victims have been given new protections under reforms that require banks to refund most account holders if they lose money to fraud.
Previously, it was up to banks if they refunded customers who had been scammed, but in a "world first", they must now repay "authorised push payment" fraud victims up to £85,000, said BBC News.
Authorised push payment scams are when criminals deceive victims into transferring them money via a banking app. The changes, launched on 7 October, introduce "world-leading levels of protection" against this kind of fraud, said the Payment Systems Regulator. Banks also now have "strong incentives" to create better ways of preventing scams in the first place. And they'll be able to "delay and investigate payments" for up to 72 hours if they are suspected to be fraudulent, according to HM Treasury.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What is authorised push payment fraud?
Authorised push payment fraud is the "most common" type of scam in the UK, said Forbes Advisor. It works by tricking individuals into "sending money under false pretences" from their own account to someone pretending to be an official body such as the bank, police or HMRC. Other common scams are romance scams, where you send money to someone you met online, or pay for goods or services that don't exist. Almost £460 million was lost to authorised push payment fraud in 2023, according to banking trade body UK Finance.
How are fraud protections changing?
Before the new changes, most banks were part of a voluntary scheme called the Contingent Reimbursement Model, where it was up to banks to refund scam victims, and they could refuse if it was "believed that warnings were ignored", said MoneyWeek. But scammers can be "pretty convincing", so the regulator has stepped in to "further protect account holders" and has made it mandatory to reimburse these fraud victims within five days.
The £85,000 limit will cover 99.8% of cases, said the regulator. It had initially proposed a higher £415,000 limit, said MoneySavingExpert, but this was lowered "amid pressure from the financial services industry". The regulator said it "could reduce investment and risked stifling competition and innovation in the market".
Banks can also charge up to a £100 excess for each claim, although not to customers deemed vulnerable.
Will new fraud protections make a difference?
The new rules mean banking customers will be "more protected under consistent minimum standards", said the regulator. Financial brands will also be more incentivised to "develop better systems" to spot and stop fraud, said lawyers Farrer & Co.
But, "sadly", the upper claims limit will leave victims of "high-value scams" unable to reclaim losses, said Which?. Banks can also reject your claim if they can show you have been "grossly negligent", added MoneySavingExpert, but this may only happen in a "small minority of cases".
There are also warnings about banks being able to hold suspicious payments for 72 hours, said property magazine The Negotiator, as this means "large-scale transactions in property purchases could be regularly blocked". Estate agency trade body Propertymark said it will be watching for "unintended consequences" from the anti-fraud measures.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Marc Shoffman is an NCTJ-qualified award-winning freelance journalist, specialising in business, property and personal finance. He has a BA in multimedia journalism from Bournemouth University and a master’s in financial journalism from City University, London. His career began at FT Business trade publication Financial Adviser, during the 2008 banking crash. In 2013, he moved to MailOnline’s personal finance section This is Money, where he covered topics ranging from mortgages and pensions to investments and even a bit of Bitcoin. Since going freelance in 2016, his work has appeared in MoneyWeek, The Times, The Mail on Sunday and on the i news site.
-
The state of Britain's Armed Forces
The Explainer Geopolitical unrest and the unreliability of the Trump administration have led to a frantic re-evaluation of the UK's military capabilities
By The Week UK
-
Anti-anxiety drug has a not-too-surprising effect on fish
Under the radar The fish act bolder and riskier
By Devika Rao, The Week US
-
Crossword: April 21, 2025
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff
-
What is your net worth and why is it worth knowing?
the explainer Take stock of your assets
By Becca Stanek, The Week US
-
What to know before lending money to family or friends
the explainer Ensure both your relationship and your finances remain intact
By Becca Stanek, The Week US
-
The best time of year to buy a car
Some months — and days — are better than others
By Becca Stanek, The Week US
-
Considering quitting your job? Here's what to do first.
The Explainer Your job likely comes with a number of financial strings attached
By Becca Stanek, The Week US
-
The pros and cons of online-only banks
the explainer You can get your finances in order without getting off your couch
By Becca Stanek, The Week US
-
Do you owe taxes on sports betting wins?
the explainer If you gain wealth of any kind, you must pay taxes on it
By Becca Stanek, The Week US
-
3 tips to prepare in case of a recession
the explainer President Donald Trump admits a recession is possible amid his newly imposed tariffs
By Becca Stanek, The Week US
-
What to know about the latest Social Security cost-of-living adjustment
The Explainer The COLA for 2025 marked the smallest increase in years, and benefit recipients are not happy
By Becca Stanek, The Week US