Not upheld: unauthorised direct debit transactions complaint against TSB Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained to TSB that direct debit payments of £22.50 monthly to an insurance company B from August 2024 to August 2025 were unauthorised because he never set up the policy. TSB rejected the claim and the FOS investigator agreed. The ombudsman upheld this decision, finding that although the original direct debit mandate was unavailable, the circumstantial evidence—including matching incoming payments, Mr F's online banking access, and his failure to complain when notified of payment failures—indicated he had authorised the payments. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although the original direct debit mandate was not available, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggested Mr F authorised the payments. The fact that Mr F received matching incoming payments each month to fund the premiums, that some references mentioned the insurance company, that he accessed his online banking regularly, and that he did not complain when receiving failure notification letters all pointed to authorisation. The ombudsman noted that banks are not typically provided with copies of insurance policies or subscriptions, so the absence of such documentation does not prove unauthorisation. The burden of evidence supported that the payments were authorised.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website