Not upheld: unauthorised transactions and account closure complaint against Barclays Bank UK Plc trading as Barclaycard

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B disputed over £1,000 in transactions on his Barclaycard made in May 2025, claiming he did not authorise them. He initially reported the card as missing or stolen but later stated it had always been in his possession. Barclays investigated and held Mr B liable, finding the physical card was present and some transactions were authenticated with the PIN. The ombudsman found Mr B's testimony unreliable due to material inconsistencies and concluded Barclays' evidence was more credible. The ombudsman determined the payments were properly authenticated and Mr B likely consented to them, finding no plausible explanation for third-party PIN compromise. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found Mr B's testimony unreliable due to material inconsistencies in his account of whether the card was lost. Barclays' evidence showing physical card presence and PIN authentication was found more credible. The ombudsman concluded that for payments to be unauthorised, there would need to be a plausible explanation for how a third party obtained the PIN, which was not established. The low-value, spread-out nature of the transactions was inconsistent with typical unauthorised use patterns. Therefore, the ombudsman found it reasonable for Barclays to conclude Mr B consented to the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website