Not upheld: irresponsible lending / failure to prevent unauthorized payments complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that HSBC should have refunded eight disputed debit card payments totaling £45,047 made to company X for collectible coins marketed as investments between November 2023 and February 2025. Mr G argued HSBC should have intervened as he was vulnerable and the payments were inconsistent with his usual spending. The ombudsman found HSBC had no recovery options available through chargeback (complaint made outside time limits) or the CRM Code (which does not cover debit cards). The ombudsman also found HSBC should not have reasonably prevented the payments, as there was no evidence of Mr G's vulnerability at the time, X was a legitimate business, and Mr G had a history of successful transactions with X. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that HSBC had no recovery options available because Mr G's complaint was made outside the chargeback time limit, and any chargeback would likely have failed as goods were provided. The CRM Code does not apply to debit card payments. Regarding prevention, HSBC should not have reasonably intervened because: (1) there was no evidence Mr G was vulnerable at the time; (2) X was a legitimate business; (3) Mr G had a history of successful transactions with X; and (4) even if HSBC had intervened, Mr G would likely have provided honest information confirming the legitimacy of the transaction, so prevention would have been unlikely.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website