Not upheld: unauthorized transaction / disputed ATM withdrawal complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Barclays failed to refund a £500 ATM withdrawal he claimed was fraudulent. Mr K stated that while depositing £2,000 at an ATM, two men approached him, pushed him away, and appeared to tamper with the machine, resulting in an unauthorized £500 withdrawal within one minute. Barclays' technical evidence showed Mr K's genuine card and correct PIN were used in a single active session, and the ombudsman found no plausible explanation for how an unknown party could have obtained both without Mr K's knowledge. The ombudsman rejected theories of card cloning as implausible given the timeframe and technology constraints, and concluded Barclays reasonably held Mr K liable for the transaction.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the technical evidence was highly persuasive in establishing that Mr K's genuine card and correct PIN were used in a single active session. The ombudsman rejected the theory that the card was cloned because card cloning technology is not widely available, the timeframe was too short (under 60 seconds), and significant protections exist against ATM card cloning. The ombudsman also noted that the pattern of activity (balance enquiries before and after, withdrawal of exactly the increased daily limit) did not follow typical unauthorized fraud patterns. Without an alternative plausible explanation for how someone unknown to Mr K could have obtained and used his card and PIN without his knowledge, the ombudsman concluded it was reasonable for Barclays to hold Mr K liable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website