Not upheld: scam and unauthorised payment / refusal to reimburse complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that Starling Bank Limited failed to reimburse a £345 payment made as part of a scam where she was tricked by someone impersonating an online marketplace into sharing her card details and approving a payment in her banking app. Miss H believed the payment would be reversed after account verification. Starling declined to reimburse, treating the payment as authorised. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that under the Payment Services Regulations consent is a formal concept focused on completing agreed steps, and Starling clearly presented the payment for approval which Miss H authorised using biometrics. The payment was not suspicious enough to require intervention, and a chargeback would have had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, the starting point is that customers are liable for authorised payments. Although Miss H was tricked and did not give genuine informed consent, consent under the PSRs is a formal concept focused on whether the user completed the agreed steps. Starling clearly presented the payment details and amount to Miss H and asked her to approve, which she did using biometrics. The payment was not suspicious or out of character for the account, so Starling had no obligation to intervene. A chargeback would have had no reasonable prospect of success because Miss H had approved the payment through strong authentication and the money transfer service was genuine, even though it was not used for Miss H's benefit.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website