Not upheld: scam/fraud - failure to prevent payment to scammer; chargeback dispute; Section 75 claim complaint against Zopa Bank Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M was scammed by someone impersonating a travel company and made a payment of £1,045.02 using her Zopa credit card on 21 July 2025. Although two other banks had declined similar payment attempts, Zopa processed the authenticated transaction without further scam checks. Zopa initially provided a provisional refund via chargeback, but the merchant defended the claim and the refund was reversed. Mrs M complained that Zopa should have intervened like the other banks did. The ombudsman found that Zopa acted reasonably in processing the payment without additional fraud checks based on the transaction's characteristics and Mrs M's account history, and that the chargeback was properly defended. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that while Zopa has a duty to make payments as instructed and should conduct fraud checks in appropriate circumstances, the transaction in question did not present sufficient indicators of fraud to warrant intervention. The payment value, the fact it was to a legitimate travel merchant, Mrs M's authentication, and her prior use of the account for travel payments meant Zopa acted reasonably in processing it without further checks. Authentication alone does not determine reasonableness but is a relevant factor when no other concerning features are present. The chargeback was properly defended by the merchant. Section 75 does not apply because there is no valid Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement - Mrs M did not have a direct contract with the service provider, and the payment was used to book flights for a third party.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website