Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Capital One failed to refund two disputed overseas transactions totaling £287.65 made on his credit card on 20 December 2025, which he reported as fraudulent within an hour of discovery. Mr B claimed he was in the UK at the time and had not shared his card or PIN with anyone, though his card was later found in his jacket pocket in January 2026. The ombudsman rejected the card cloning theory and, while accepting Mr B was likely in the UK, found no plausible explanation for how a third party could have obtained his PIN and accessed his card without his knowledge. The transaction pattern (low value, no further attempts, no declined transactions) was inconsistent with unauthorized fraud. The ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mr B was likely involved in the transactions and upheld Capital One's decision not to refund them.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that consumers are responsible for authorized payments and businesses for unauthorized payments. The ombudsman rejected the card cloning theory as highly unlikely given existing protections. While accepting that Mr B was likely in the UK on 20 December 2025, the ombudsman concluded this did not prove the payments were unauthorized. The ombudsman found it implausible that a third party could have obtained Mr B's PIN without explanation, noted the absence of declined transactions that would suggest guessing, and observed that the transaction pattern (low value, no further attempts) was inconsistent with opportunistic fraud. On the balance of probabilities, the ombudsman determined Mr B was likely involved in the transactions in some way, making Capital One's treatment of them as authorized reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website