Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / disputed payment complaint against Lendable Ltd (trading as Zable)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that nine transactions totalling £1,420 made via Apple Pay on his Zable credit card to Ikea were unauthorized. Zable refused to refund him, and an FOS investigator initially did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman upheld the investigator's decision, finding that the transactions were properly authenticated and that Mr C had consented to them. The ombudsman noted that the 19-day gap between Apple Pay setup and the transactions, combined with the account balance remaining intact, was atypical of fraud, and Mr C failed to provide evidence that his OTP or device had been compromised. Therefore, no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require both authentication and consent for authorized transactions. While the transactions were authenticated, the key issue was consent. The ombudsman found two striking features inconsistent with typical fraud: the 19-day delay between Apple Pay setup and the transactions, and the fact that the account balance was not depleted. Combined with Mr C's failure to provide persuasive evidence that his OTP or device was compromised, the ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mr C consented to the transactions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website