Not upheld: disputed transaction / unauthorized payment claim complaint against Metro Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs L complained that Metro Bank PLC refused to refund a disputed £1,019.09 payment to a clothes retailer that she claimed she did not authorize. Mrs L argued the transaction was made in-store abroad while she was in the UK, and that her phone with Face ID and passcode protection could not have been accessed by a fraudster. The ombudsman examined technical evidence showing the transaction was authenticated using Mrs L's Apple Pay token on her phone, that her account was accessed one minute after authorization, that she made other genuine transactions that day, and that an incoming credit for the exact same amount was received. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Mrs L authorized the transaction herself and therefore upheld Metro's refusal to refund her.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which place liability on the customer if they authorized the payment and on the bank if they did not. The key question was whether Mrs L or a third party fraudster was more likely to have authorized the transaction. The ombudsman found that the technical evidence conclusively showed the transaction was authenticated using Mrs L's Apple Pay token on her phone, which was protected by Face ID and passcode that only she knew. The ombudsman rejected Mrs L's argument that the transaction was made in-store abroad, finding the technical evidence clearly showed it was an online transaction. The ombudsman also found the coincidence of the incoming credit for the exact same amount, the account login one minute after authorization, the other genuine transactions that day, and the absence of any other fraudulent activity all pointed to Mrs L having authorized the transaction herself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website