Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs G complained that NatWest declined to refund disputed transactions totalling £4,077 made between 9-10 August 2025 via Apple Pay. Mrs G claimed her phone and card were in her possession and that household members who had access to her phone did not authorise the payments. NatWest treated the transactions as authorised because they were made via an Apple Pay token registered to Mrs G's account and set up over 18 months prior. The ombudsman found the transactions were authorised under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, as Mrs G confirmed her device was in her possession and the ombudsman could not reasonably require NatWest to refund based on speculation about unauthorised household member use. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied The Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require that for distance contracts (non-face-to-face transactions), a consumer can only be held liable if they authorised the transactions. The ombudsman found sufficient evidence that the transactions were authorised by Mrs G because: (1) they were made via an Apple Pay token registered to her account and set up over 18 months prior; (2) Mrs G confirmed her phone and card were in her possession; (3) while household members had access to her phone, Mrs G was adamant they did not authorise the transactions, and the ombudsman could not reasonably require NatWest to refund based on speculation about unauthorised household members; (4) the transaction values, while significant to Mrs G, were not unusual enough to warrant NatWest's intervention; and (5) a chargeback would have been unlikely to succeed given the evidence of token use.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website