Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed fraud claim complaint against Lendable Ltd (trading as Zable)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms K complained that Zable refused to refund her for approximately £2,000 in disputed transactions made via Apple Pay in October 2025, which she claimed were fraudulent. Zable's investigation found that the Apple Pay token used for most transactions was activated on 5 September using a one-time passcode sent to Ms K's registered phone, and that Ms K initially confirmed receiving this OTP. The ombudsman found that because Ms K had her phone in her possession at all times, it was protected by Face ID, and she initially acknowledged receiving the OTP, it was most likely that she authorised the token setup and subsequent transactions herself. Although the ombudsman acknowledged that Zable could have implemented better fraud detection procedures to block the suspicious transaction patterns, this did not change Ms K's liability under the Payment Services Regulations 2017. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which place liability on the customer if they authorised the payments, and on the bank if they did not. The key finding was that Ms K must have authorised the Apple Pay token set up on 5 September because: (1) she had her phone and card in her possession; (2) her phone was protected by Face ID, preventing unauthorised access; (3) she initially told Zable she received the OTP; (4) Zable sent a confirmation email which she did not query; and (5) the 43-day gap between token setup and disputed transactions was atypical of fraud. While Zable could have done more to block suspicious transactions showing fraud indicators (repeated payments, reaching credit limit), this does not change liability since Ms K most likely authorised them herself. The ombudsman rejected Ms K's later suggestion that she authorised purchases but goods weren't delivered, as this contradicted her consistent previous position that she didn't authorise the transactions at all.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website