Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase

Decision detail

Summary

Miss K complained that Chase refused to refund a £165 transaction she claimed she did not authorise, made on 1 January 2026 to an online merchant. She also raised concerns about Chase's complaint handling, including delays and failure to recognise her vulnerability. The ombudsman found that the disputed transaction was authenticated using 3D Secure, which requires active account holder approval, and was made minutes after Miss K made a genuine authorised transaction to the same merchant using the same method. Based on the technical evidence, notifications sent to Miss K, and the absence of any evidence of account compromise, the ombudsman concluded the transaction was authorised and Chase acted fairly in holding Miss K liable. Chase had already awarded £200 compensation for poor customer service, which the ombudsman found adequate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that 3D Secure authentication requires the account holder to actively approve transactions, and both the genuine and disputed transactions were completed using this method. The technical evidence demonstrated Miss K passed the 3DS authentication process for both payments, and notifications were sent to her confirming both transactions. Given the short time difference between the two transactions and the lack of evidence of account compromise or how a third party could have completed the transaction without her involvement, the ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Miss K authorised the disputed payment. The payment was not so unusual or out of character that Chase should have identified it as suspicious.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website