Not upheld: disputed unauthorised transactions complaint against Modulr FS Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that Modulr FS Limited declined to reimburse disputed transactions on her account that she claimed she did not make or authorise. The ombudsman reviewed technical evidence showing that two devices accessed the account, both requiring authentication via OTP sent to Miss H's registered phone number, and that payments included card transactions and Apple Pay transactions, all requiring various forms of authentication. The ombudsman found that the pattern of activity, including gambling transactions with corresponding credits returned to the account, and the requirement for ID verification to set up gambling accounts, indicated that Miss H most likely made or authorised the transactions herself. The complaint was not upheld, and Modulr was required to do nothing further.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require determining whether payments were authenticated correctly and whether Miss H consented to them. The ombudsman found that the technical evidence, including device access patterns, authentication requirements, and the nature of the transactions (particularly gambling with credits returned to the account), all pointed to Miss H being the most likely person to have made the transactions. The ombudsman found it implausible that an unknown third party could have accessed both devices, obtained the card details, set up Apple Pay with OTP verification, completed 3D Secure authentication, and set up gambling accounts requiring ID verification.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website