Not upheld: disputed transactions / unauthorised transactions claim complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Ms L complained that Capital One refused to refund credit card transactions from June 2023 onwards that she claimed were unauthorised and fraudulent, following the loss of her credit card and PIN in 2025. Capital One maintained the transactions were authorised based on technical evidence showing proper authentication and the pattern of regular repayments. The ombudsman found that the transactions were executed using Ms L's card details with proper authentication (including app verification), occurred over nearly two years at everyday merchants where Ms L had previously shopped, were confirmed as genuine by Ms L during a Capital One verification call, and were accompanied by regular repayments including balance transfers from Ms L's other credit card. The ombudsman concluded there was no credible evidence of fraud or ID theft and determined Capital One had met legal requirements to demonstrate authorisation, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard and considered the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 83 and the Payment Services Regulations 2017. The key reasoning was that the transactions were executed using Ms L's own card details with proper authentication (card, PIN, and app verification), occurred over nearly two years (inconsistent with typical fraud patterns), involved merchants where Ms L had made undisputed transactions previously, were confirmed as genuine by Ms L during a Capital One verification call, and were accompanied by regular repayments made by Ms L using her own bank details and balance transfers from her other credit card. The ombudsman found no credible evidence of ID theft or fraud and concluded Ms L must have authorised the transactions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website