Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Vanquis Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Vanquis Bank refused to refund unauthorized cash withdrawals made on his new credit card. He claimed the card and PIN were sent to his previous address, allowing a third party to use them. However, the ombudsman found that Mr G had entered that address on his application form as his current address, so Vanquis correctly sent the card and PIN there. The card activation required Mr G's correct date of birth to be entered, and since Mr G had no relationship with anyone at that address, the ombudsman concluded it was more likely that Mr G himself authorized the transactions. The complaint was not upheld, and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which determine liability based on whether the customer authorized the payments. The key finding was that Mr G provided the address to which the card and PIN were sent on his application form, and the person activating the card knew Mr G's correct date of birth. Since Mr G stated he had no relationship with anyone at that address, it was more likely than not that Mr G himself authorized the transactions rather than an unknown third party. The ombudsman rejected arguments about CCTV and cash machine records as not being definitive proof of identity, and found that the focus should be on authorization rather than proof of delivery.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website