Not upheld: unauthorised payments dispute complaint against ClearBank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C, as director of R Ltd, complained that ClearBank Limited refused to refund three payments totalling £881.75 made to a restaurant and nightclub on 8-9 August 2025, which he claimed were unauthorised. Mr C stated he had no memory of attending the venues and did not consciously transact with them. ClearBank investigated and held Mr C liable, treating the payments as authorised. The ombudsman found that ClearBank had reasonably determined the payments were authorised based on evidence of Google Pay authentication, the use of the same device for other undisputed legitimate payments, Mr C's admission of being near the venues, and a spending pattern inconsistent with fraud. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require the payment service provider to prove that a transaction was authenticated and that the user consented to it. The ombudsman found ClearBank had evidenced authentication through Google Pay and determined on the balance of probability that Mr C had consented to the payments based on: (1) the same Google Pay device being used for other undisputed legitimate payments; (2) the pattern of spending (spread over hours, not rapid succession typical of fraud); (3) Mr C's admission of being near the venues; and (4) the significant remaining credit balance. The ombudsman rejected Mr C's argument that payment instrument use alone is insufficient, finding the totality of evidence supported authorisation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website