Not upheld: payment processing of unlicensed gambling business and incorrect merchant category codes complaint against Payver Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Payver Limited facilitated payments totalling over €1,200 to an unlicensed gambling business (E) despite his efforts to block such transactions through his home country bank and self-exclusion arrangements. The payments were misclassified as cash payments rather than gambling transactions, rendering Mr G's protective measures ineffective. Payver argued it was merely a payment processor and could not be expected to monitor merchants or verify merchant category codes. The ombudsman upheld Payver's position, finding it unreasonable to expect the payment processor to monitor merchant activities or verify correct classification codes, and declined to uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that Payver, as a payment processor, cannot reasonably be expected to monitor the activities of merchants or verify merchant category codes. The ombudsman noted that whether E is operating illegally is a matter for its own jurisdiction and that there is insufficient evidence regarding applicable licensing rules. While sympathetic to Mr G's frustration that his protective measures were circumvented, the ombudsman found it unfair to hold Payver responsible for the merchant's use of incorrect codes.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website