Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / continuous payment authority dispute complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P complained that Starling Bank allowed a third party to take money from her account on multiple occasions without her permission. Mrs P had booked a holiday through a merchant and agreed to a payment plan with nine set payments. After missing one payment, the merchant took over 100 payments totaling approximately £700 and cancelled the holiday. Starling advised Mrs P that she could raise a chargeback but explained that it would not be successful because she had set up a continuous payment authority and missed a payment, entitling the merchant to recover the amount in multiple smaller payments. The ombudsman found Starling's response was fair and reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Starling's response to Mrs P was fair and reasonable. Although Mrs P was unhappy with the merchant's actions in taking over 100 payments, the ombudsman's role was to assess Starling's response rather than the merchant's conduct. Starling correctly advised Mrs P about chargebacks and explained that because she had set up a continuous payment authority, agreed to a repayment plan, and missed a payment, the merchant was entitled to take the payments in the manner it did. Therefore, a chargeback would not be successful.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website