Upheld: unauthorised payments / fraud complaint against Zopa Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6206374 of 2026-06-14T00:00:00+00:00. unauthorised payments / fraud complaint against Zopa Bank Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6206374 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Zopa Bank Limited |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | unauthorised payments / fraud |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Zopa Bank Limited must: (1) refund Mr F £136 for the three payments to D; (2) rework the credit card account to refund any interest or charges caused by these payments; (3) pay 8% simple interest on sums repaid towards the credit card balance from the date repaid to settlement (less tax properly deductible); (4) remove any adverse information reported on Mr F's credit file caused by these payments. |
Summary
Mr F fell victim to a sophisticated scam where a fraudster impersonated his other credit card provider and persuaded him to share his Zopa card details under the guise of fraud protection. The scammer used these details to set up a Google Pay wallet and made three unauthorised payments totalling £136 to a food store. Zopa refused to refund the payments, arguing Mr F had failed to exercise due diligence. The ombudsman upheld Mr F's complaint, finding that while Mr F may have provided authentication details, he did not authorise the subsequent payments and was deceived about the purpose of his actions. Zopa was ordered to refund the £136, rework the account, pay interest, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that Section 83 of the CCA applies to this case as it concerns misuse of a credit facility, not just lost or stolen instruments. The key question was whether Mr F authorised the payments or gave the fraudster permission to use the credit token. While Mr F likely shared his card details and either an OTP or in-app approval to set up the Google Pay wallet, he was deceived about the purpose and believed he was protecting himself from fraud. The subsequent payments to D were not directly authorised by Mr F but made by the fraudster using the wallet. Given Mr F was tricked about who he was dealing with and what he was authorising, it would be unfair to treat his actions as granting permission for payments. Therefore, the payments are unauthorised and Zopa is liable.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Zopa Bank Limited, all decisions | 558 | 27% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 25,211 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website