Partially upheld: unauthorised transactions / impersonation scam complaint against ClearBank Limited (trading as Tide)

Decision detail

Summary

S, a limited company, complained that ClearBank Limited (via Tide) refused to refund unauthorised transactions totalling £8,588.51 made following an impersonation scam. Ms M, the company director, was deceived by a scammer impersonating Tide's fraud team and unknowingly authorised payments through the Tide app. The ombudsman found that three payments totalling £8,388.51 made on 18 July 2024 were authorised because Ms M completed the necessary authentication steps in the app, and these payments were consistent with the account's normal transaction patterns. However, a fourth payment of £200 made on 10 October 2024 was found to be unauthorised because Tide failed to provide sufficient evidence (device activity log) to demonstrate Ms M had authenticated it, particularly given the account had previously been compromised. The complaint was partially upheld and ClearBank was ordered to refund the £200 payment plus 8% simple interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Payments 1-3 were authorised because Ms M completed the necessary steps in the Tide app to authenticate them, including viewing the transaction value and recipient merchant name before selecting 'approve payment'. Although Ms M was a victim of a scam, she did consent to these payments through her actions in the app. The ombudsman was not persuaded these payments were suspicious enough to warrant Tide making additional enquiries, as the largest payment of £4,495.53 was consistent with the account's previous transaction patterns. However, for Payment 4, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of authorisation because Tide did not provide the device activity log for this transaction (unlike the earlier ones), could not cross-reference it with the same device, and the account had previously been compromised. On the balance of probabilities, the ombudsman concluded Payment 4 was unauthorised and that Ms M was not grossly negligent in relation to this payment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website