Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Wise Payments Limited trading as Wise

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B complained that Wise mishandled her international transfer attempts by making inconsistent verification requests and failing to complete the transactions despite her compliance. Wise cancelled both transfers because the funds came from a business account rather than Miss B's personal account, violating its requirement that payment instruments must be in the customer's name. The ombudsman found that Wise's terms and conditions were clear and reasonable, the transfers were correctly cancelled, and refunds were processed within service timeframes. Although there was some confusion in communications between Miss B and Wise advisers, this did not constitute a service failure. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Wise's terms and conditions clearly require payment instruments to be in the customer's name and are not unreasonable. The transfers were correctly cancelled because the funds came from a business account rather than Miss B's personal account, constituting a third-party deposit. While there was some confusion in communications between Miss B and Wise advisers, this did not constitute a service failure. Wise acted quickly to identify the problem, was clear about the name mismatch requirement, and processed refunds within its service timeframes. The ombudsman accepted that Wise cannot be held responsible for delays in the corporate entity returning funds to Miss B's account.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website