Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed payments complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K disputed €1,300 in transactions made on his credit card via Apple Pay while in Spain, claiming they were unauthorised. Zable's technical logs showed all transactions were made using Mr K's genuine device with his established Apple Pay token, requiring either his passcode or Face ID to authenticate each payment. The ombudsman found it implausible that a third party could have repeatedly accessed the secured device without Mr K's knowledge over a two-hour period. In the absence of conclusive evidence of device compromise, the ombudsman concluded the transactions were more likely authorised by Mr K and upheld Zable's decision to hold him liable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and Section 83 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. For a payment to be unauthorised, Mr K must not have authenticated and given consent. The ombudsman found that all payments were made using Mr K's genuine device with Apple Pay, requiring either his passcode or Face ID to unlock the device and authorise each transaction. The ombudsman found it implausible that a third party could have repeatedly accessed the device without Mr K's knowledge over a two-hour period. In the absence of conclusive evidence of device compromise, the ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Mr K authorised the transactions himself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website