Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Transfergo Ltd trading as TransferGo

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that TransferGo delayed three of ten international payments he initiated on 1 January 2026, holding funds for over 15 days while requesting additional verification documentation despite him providing bank statements, proof of funds, income evidence, and proof of relationship with the beneficiary. Mr W argued the checks were disproportionate and not in line with Payment Services Regulations requiring proportionate AML checks without unnecessary delay. TransferGo maintained its due diligence obligations justified the review and that Mr W failed to provide final requested documentation. The ombudsman upheld TransferGo's position, finding that security and AML obligations override standard processing timeframes and that the pattern of ten payments in increments legitimately triggered enhanced checks, though acknowledging communication via webchat could have been clearer.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that TransferGo's security and anti-money laundering obligations are overriding and take precedence over general payment processing timeframes. While three of ten payments being stopped may appear inconsistent, each transaction is considered on its own merits and in the context of overall account behaviour. The pattern of ten payments in increments was a legitimate trigger for enhanced due diligence. TransferGo's website clearly stated payments are subject to security checks and that further documents may be requested. Although communication could have been clearer, this minor administrative error does not constitute unfair treatment. TransferGo communicated next steps and offered refund options when Mr W expressed frustration.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website