Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / alleged identity theft complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs G complained that First Direct failed to refund three transactions totalling £1,080 that she claimed were unauthorized and made without her knowledge, alleging she was a victim of identity theft. First Direct argued the payments were set up and authorized using Mrs G's registered phone with Face ID biometric security, and that when one payment was blocked, a caller responded to their security message and confirmed it was genuine. The ombudsman reviewed the evidence and concluded that the use of Mrs G's phone with biometric security, her retention of the phone, and the caller's ability to pass security checks made it unlikely an unknown third party was responsible. The complaint was not upheld, and First Direct was not required to refund the transactions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the evidence strongly indicated Mrs G herself authorized the payments. The use of her registered phone with biometric security, her retention of the phone with no unauthorized access, the caller's ability to respond to a message sent to her phone and pass security checks including logging into her account, and her reference to the previous day's call in her second call all pointed to Mrs G's involvement. The ombudsman found it unlikely that an unknown third party could have accessed her phone, used her biometrics, and made the payments without her knowledge. The ombudsman also noted that scam guidance did not apply as Mrs G denied involvement in the payments rather than claiming she was caught in a scheme.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website