Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed payments complaint against Metro Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D disputed £5,250 in transactions made on his Metro Bank account between May and June 2025, claiming he did not authorise them. Metro investigated and refused to refund, stating the payments were made using Mr D's registered device with proper authentication including OTPs sent to his genuine mobile number. The ombudsman reviewed the evidence and concluded that given the security protections on Mr D's phone (biometrics and passcode), the genuine OTPs sent to his registered number, the matching IP addresses with authorised transactions, and the implausibility of a third party accessing the account without Mr D's knowledge, it was more likely than not that Mr D or someone with his authority made the payments. The complaint was not upheld and Metro was not held liable for the disputed transactions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 presumption that Mr D is liable for authorised payments and Metro is liable for unauthorised payments. The key finding was that for Metro to be held liable, there must be evidence suggesting Mr D or someone with his authority did not consent to the transactions. The ombudsman found it implausible that a third party could have made the payments without Mr D's knowledge given: (1) the phone was in his possession with biometric and passcode protection; (2) OTPs were sent to his genuine number; (3) the IP address matched authorised transactions; (4) genuine transactions by Mr D occurred during the same period; and (5) the pattern of transactions (two clusters with a month gap) was inconsistent with typical fraud. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Mr D or someone with his authority made the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website