Not upheld: unauthorized application and alleged non-delivery of goods under fixed sum loan agreement complaint against Tesco Mobile Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P complained that Tesco Mobile held her liable for a fixed sum loan of approximately £540 for a phone she claimed she did not order and did not receive. Mrs P alleged the application was fraudulently made in her name using an unfamiliar email address, and that she refused delivery and returned the package to the courier. Tesco relied on the courier's photographic and GPS evidence showing successful delivery to Mrs P's residential address, and noted that all other application details were correct and payments were made from Mrs P's accounts. The ombudsman found that on the balance of probabilities, Tesco fairly concluded Mrs P had authorized the application and that the phone was likely successfully delivered, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard, finding that despite the disputed email address, the combination of correct personal information, successful payments from Mrs P's accounts, postal delivery to her address, and the courier's photographic and GPS evidence supported Tesco's conclusion that Mrs P likely applied for the phone and that it was likely successfully delivered. The ombudsman noted that the pattern of fraud alleged (older phone model, delivery to victim's own address) did not fit typical impersonation fraud scenarios. The ombudsman acknowledged the evidence was incomplete but found Tesco had fairly assessed the available information. The ombudsman also noted that Tesco was obligated to report accurate information to credit reference agencies and found no evidence that the reported missed payments were inaccurate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website