Not upheld: unauthorised transactions - late reporting complaint against Clydesdale Bank Plc (trading as Virgin Money)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms T complained that Virgin Money refused to refund seven disputed transactions totalling £658.59 that occurred between 1-9 July 2024. She reported the transactions on 23 September 2025, over 13 months later, claiming she had only just discovered them while preparing information for her accountant. Virgin refused the refund citing the 13-month reporting requirement in the Payment Services Regulations 2017. Ms T subsequently claimed she had been vulnerable at the time due to medical issues and caring for a terminally ill relative, but the ombudsman found this explanation unreliable because Ms T had explicitly told Virgin and the FOS investigator that she had no personal circumstances to disclose and had instead blamed the fraud's 'concealed nature'. The ombudsman upheld Virgin's refusal to refund, finding Ms T had failed to report the transactions within the statutory timescale.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Ms T failed to report the disputed transactions within the 13-month statutory timescale required by the Payment Services Regulations 2017. Although Ms T received monthly paper statements and had access to mobile banking, she did not report the transactions until over 13 months after they occurred. The ombudsman was cautious about accepting Ms T's later claims of vulnerability as the reason for the delay, since Ms T had explicitly told both Virgin and the FOS investigator that she had no personal circumstances to disclose, and had instead attributed the delay to the 'concealed nature' of the fraud. The ombudsman noted that Ms T appeared open and cheerful in phone recordings and had admitted frankly that she simply hadn't opened her statements. The Payment Services Regulations do not provide for exceptions to the 13-month rule, and even if they did, there was doubt about whether vulnerability was the genuine reason for the delay given Ms T's prior statements.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website