Not upheld: disputed transaction / unauthorized payment claim complaint against Wise Payments Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs F disputed a $516.17 transaction from her Wise account, claiming she did not authorize it despite receiving an approval message on her phone. Wise declined to refund the transaction, stating it was approved via 3D Secure authentication using Mrs F's registered device. Two FOS investigators reached different conclusions, with the first finding Wise entitled to hold Mrs F liable and the second recommending a refund. The ombudsman found that technical evidence confirmed Mrs F's own Android device was used to approve the transaction via 3D Secure, and given Mrs F's own statements about maintaining strict security and being the sole device user, there was no credible explanation for how an unauthorized third party could have accessed both her device and account. The ombudsman therefore upheld Wise's position that the transaction was authorized and declined to require a refund.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the technical evidence strongly suggested Mrs F authorized the transaction because: (1) her own registered mobile device was used to approve it via 3D Secure authentication; (2) Mrs F maintained strict security over her device, login, and 3DS tools and was the sole user; (3) there was no evidence of malware, suspicious activity, or compromise of her device; and (4) Mrs F provided no credible explanation for how an unauthorized third party could have accessed both her device and her Wise account. While the ombudsman acknowledged that something must have happened for the transaction to occur, the evidence of device usage combined with Mrs F's own security assertions left no reasonable explanation for unauthorized access. The ombudsman rejected Mrs F's arguments that the 3D Secure process alone does not establish consent, finding that combined with device association and her security claims, it strongly suggested authorization. The failed authentication attempt and Mrs F's prompt reporting did not change this conclusion.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website