Not upheld: payment error and refund liability complaint against Western Union Payment Services GB Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6284945 of 2026-04-11T00:00:00+00:00. payment error and refund liability complaint against Western Union Payment Services GB Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6284945 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Western Union Payment Services GB Limited |
| Product | money transfer service |
| Claim type | payment error and refund liability |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mrs M sent £850 to her husband in India via Western Union using an incorrect account number. Western Union did not refund the money as the recipient bank in India did not comply with recall requests and does not perform name-to-account matching. The ombudsman found Western Union had provided clear warnings about payment recall limitations and was not responsible for the actions of the recipient bank or the recipient's refusal to return the funds. Western Union had followed Mrs M's instructions and attempted multiple recalls. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Mrs M made the transfer using incorrect account details and was responsible for ensuring the accuracy of those details. Western Union provided clear warnings that payments may not be recoverable in case of error and followed Mrs M's instructions correctly. Western Union cannot be held responsible for the actions of the recipient bank in India or for the recipient's refusal to return the funds. Western Union took reasonable steps by attempting to recall the money multiple times. The ombudsman rejected the investigator's recommendation for compensation as the confirmation receipt was not shown to have caused distress or confusion to Mrs M.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Western Union Payment Services GB Limited, all decisions | 24 | 10% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website