Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained to Starling Bank about two unrecognized transactions in November and December 2025, which Starling refunded. During investigation, Starling identified a third transaction to the same merchant that it did not refund, claiming it was authorized. Mr T also complained that Starling did not adequately support his vulnerabilities and that he felt bullied during the complaint process. The ombudsman found the third transaction was authorized based on device verification and IP address consistency, and that Starling made reasonable adjustments for Mr T's vulnerabilities by connecting him to Enhanced Customer Care, adjusting verification processes, and proactively asking what support he needed. The ombudsman concluded that Starling's communication, while repetitive, was necessary and fair, and did not constitute bullying or harassment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the 21 November payment was authorized based on device verification and IP address consistency, so no refund was warranted for that transaction. The two other transactions had already been refunded by Starling. Regarding complaint handling, the ombudsman reviewed all correspondence and found that Starling was aware of Mr T's vulnerabilities, proactively asked what support he needed, connected him to Enhanced Customer Care, adjusted its verification process, simplified information requirements, and attempted to communicate accessibly. The questions asked were necessary for proper investigation. While the ombudsman acknowledged Mr T's distress, the communication did not amount to bullying or harassment, and Starling made reasonable attempts to adapt its service in line with FCA guidance on vulnerable consumers and consumer duty rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website