Not upheld: unauthorized transaction / alleged fraud complaint against Wise Payments Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S disputed a transaction of 8,860 PLN made via his Wise card on 19 December 2026, claiming he did not authorize it and had no recollection of events due to suspected spiking. The transaction followed two unsuccessful payment attempts that triggered Wise to freeze his card. Mr S alleged he was coerced into making the payment while lacking capacity. The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and found that while the transaction was authenticated, Mr S had either authorized it directly or allowed a third party to undertake the authorization procedure. Finding insufficient evidence of spiking or coercion, the ombudsman concluded Mr S was liable for the transaction and not entitled to a refund.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require both authentication and consent for an authorized transaction. While the transaction was authenticated, the key issue was consent. The ombudsman found that Mr S allowed a third party to undertake the procedure needed to give consent, and Wise relied on this when processing the transaction. Although Mr S claims coercion and lack of capacity due to suspected spiking, the ombudsman found insufficient persuasive evidence to conclude the transaction was made without his consent. The ombudsman noted that coercion would not necessarily invalidate the apparent authority Mr S gave to a third party, and that Mr S's assertion of being spiked was mere speculation without compelling evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website