Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against New Wave Capital Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W, a company director, complained on behalf of his limited company P that Capital on Tap (CoT) refused to refund seven disputed transactions totalling £11,800.27 made on 18 October 2024, which he claimed were unauthorised. Mr W had attended a works event on the evening of 17 October involving heavy drinking and had limited recollection of events. The transactions were authenticated via Apple Pay (requiring biometric/passcode) or Chip and PIN (requiring physical card and PIN). CoT declined the refund, arguing that the security requirements meant Mr W must have been involved. The ombudsman found it was not unreasonable for CoT to treat the payments as authorised, noting that while third-party fraud was theoretically possible, it would be highly unusual for a fraudster to return Mr W's phone and cards, and Mr W continued using both cards the following morning. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr W's account of heavy drinking and memory loss was credible, the security requirements for the payments (biometric authentication or physical card with PIN) meant that unauthorised third-party access would have required very specific circumstances. The ombudsman noted that it would be highly unusual for a third party to return Mr W's phone and cards after making fraudulent payments, and that Mr W continued to use both his CoT card and other bank cards on the morning of 18 October, suggesting they had not been stolen. The ombudsman concluded that while the case was balanced, there was insufficient evidence to show it was unreasonable for CoT to treat the payments as authorised. Mr W's inability to remember the events meant he could not definitively rule out his own involvement or authorisation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website