Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed transactions complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained to Barclays about disputed transactions on his current account from 3-18 March 2025, totalling approximately 16 transactions made via contactless, chip and PIN, and Google Pay, which he claimed were fraudulent. Barclays and the FOS investigator rejected the complaint, noting that Mr W's genuine card was used, his PIN would have been required for one transaction, Google Pay required his biometric authentication and OTP verification, and the transaction pattern was atypical of fraud. The ombudsman upheld the rejection, finding that the evidence collectively demonstrated Mr W or someone acting with his authority most likely authorised the transactions, particularly given his active monitoring of his account during the disputed period and his failure to report the transactions until 20 March despite contacting Barclays on 11 March.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which place the burden on the consumer to prove unauthorised transactions. The key findings were: (1) Mr W's genuine card was physically used, making it implausible a third party obtained and returned it multiple times without detection; (2) the requirement of PIN knowledge for one transaction made unauthorised use highly unlikely; (3) Google Pay addition required biometric login and OTP verification to Mr W's registered number, indicating Mr W's involvement; (4) the transaction pattern was atypical of fraud (low values, two-week period, no maximisation of funds); (5) Mr W was actively monitoring his account and contacted Barclays during the disputed period but did not report these transactions until 20 March; (6) the chip cloning theory was rejected as implausible and unsupported by evidence. Collectively, these factors led to the conclusion that Mr W or someone acting with his authority most likely authorised the transactions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website