Not upheld: fraud database loading / disputed fraud claim complaint against Metro Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Metro Bank unfairly loaded his details to a fraud database after declining his fraud claim. Mr A had reported multiple card transactions as fraudulent while overseas, suggesting someone at a hotel had taken his card. Mr A later claimed he was a victim of impersonation fraud and provided evidence of identity theft. The ombudsman found that the pattern of transactions—including cash withdrawals requiring the PIN, transactions at locations Mr A visited, concurrent mobile banking activity by Mr A, and modest withdrawal amounts—made it extremely unlikely a third party was responsible. The ombudsman concluded Metro had provided sufficient evidence to justify the fraud database loading and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a higher burden of proof for fraud database loading, requiring very persuasive evidence that Mr A made the transactions himself or authorized someone to make them, then reported them as fraudulent. The ombudsman analyzed the pattern of transactions and concluded it was extremely unlikely a third party could have obtained and repeatedly replaced Mr A's card, known his PIN, traveled with him to multiple locations, and made only modest withdrawals despite having unrestricted access. The ombudsman found Mr A would have noticed the transactions on mobile banking sooner and that the transaction pattern logically indicated Mr A made them himself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website