Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs D complained that Barclays refused to refund a £1,300 withdrawal she claimed she did not authorise, which occurred on the same day she deposited £1,300 at a branch on 30 September 2024. Mrs D discovered the withdrawal almost a year later and disputed it, arguing it made no logical sense to deposit and immediately withdraw the same amount. Barclays provided technical evidence including a withdrawal receipt with Mrs D's signature that matched her signature mandate on file, and documentation showing identification verification was completed within the same session. The ombudsman, applying the balance of probabilities standard, found the technical evidence more persuasive than Mrs D's recollection and concluded there was no alternative explanation for how the withdrawal occurred, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the regulatory principle that banks are liable for unauthorised transactions but entitled to hold customers liable for authorised ones. The decision was based on balance of probabilities given the passage of time. The technical evidence, including the matching signature and identification verification within the same session, was more persuasive than Mrs D's recollection. The ombudsman found no alternative explanation for how Mrs D's signature became compromised or how identification was used to obtain the funds, and concluded that CCTV footage would not have aided the investigation given the signature verification evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website