Not upheld: disputed transactions / unauthorised payments complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B disputed nine transactions totalling £308.67 made between February and April 2025 on his Capital One credit card, claiming he had not authorised them. Capital One rejected his fraud claim, noting the transactions required his genuine card, correct PIN, and app access, and that the spending pattern was inconsistent with fraud. The ombudsman upheld Capital One's decision, finding on the balance of probabilities that Mr B or someone he authorised made the payments, as it would have been highly unlikely for a third party to have accessed all three security elements without Mr B's knowledge. The ombudsman also clarified that Capital One was not required to provide investigation details or cease credit reporting while the claim was under investigation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a balance of probabilities test rather than requiring absolute proof of authorisation. Given that all transactions required Mr B's genuine card, correct PIN (with no failed attempts), and registered phone app access, and Mr B's evidence that he kept these secure and didn't share them, it would be highly unlikely for a third party to have made the transactions. The spending pattern of low-value transactions over 10 weeks at everyday locations was inconsistent with typical fraud. Mr B's app login records showed he accessed his account multiple times around the transaction period, suggesting he was aware of the activity. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Mr B or someone he authorised made the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website