Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Tide Platform Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O, representing company P, complained that Tide Platform Limited wrongfully declined to reimburse a £400 ATM withdrawal from P's business account that occurred after Mr O believed his drink was spiked. Police investigation confirmed Mr O did not make the withdrawal, but Tide declined reimbursement on the basis that the PIN was required. The ombudsman found that the most likely explanation was that Mr O gave his PIN to a third party, either intentionally or under duress, and that under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, banks are not required to refund such transactions where security credentials have not been kept safe. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, banks must refund unauthorized payments except where customers have failed to keep security credentials safe, either intentionally or with gross negligence. The ombudsman found that since the ATM withdrawal required the PIN and there was no reasonable explanation for how a third party obtained it through observation or theft, the most likely explanation is that Mr O intentionally gave his PIN to someone else. While this may have occurred under duress from being drugged, the PSRs do not provide exceptions for coercion. The ombudsman also found the transaction itself did not stand out sufficiently for Tide to have questioned it further.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website