Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6280262 of 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00. Card / payment disputes complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6280262 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lloyds Bank PLC |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | Card / payment disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr B complained that his Lloyds credit card was blocked without justification when he attempted to purchase a computer system online on 28 January 2026. Lloyds declined the transaction and required Strong Customer Authentication verification via its app, which Mr B reported failed to load. The ombudsman found that Lloyds correctly flagged the online transaction as high-risk (in contrast to Mr B's previous face-to-face purchase) and properly applied regulatory Strong Customer Authentication requirements. Without evidence of a system-wide app issue, the ombudsman could not conclude Lloyds made an error. The complaint was not upheld, and no compensation was ordered.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Lloyds' security systems correctly flagged the transaction as high-risk because it was an online transaction (card-not-present), which differs from the previous face-to-face purchase. Strong Customer Authentication is a regulatory requirement designed to reduce fraud. While Mr B reported app loading issues, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether this was a system-wide issue or a device/connection problem. No evidence of widespread app issues affecting other customers was provided by Lloyds. The declined transaction, while frustrating, resulted from legitimate security processes correctly applied.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lloyds Bank PLC, all decisions | 19,867 | 16% |
| Card / payment disputes, all decisions | 14,309 | 19% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 26,052 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website