Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed cash withdrawals complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained that Halifax refused to refund two cash withdrawals on 1 March 2026 that she claimed she did not authorise, believing her card had been cloned. Halifax treated the transactions as authorised because they were made using Miss C's genuine card with the correct PIN, and Miss C could not explain how a third party could have accessed both. The ombudsman found that Miss C's card was in her possession, she had not shared her PIN, and there was a four-hour gap between the last legitimate transaction and the disputed withdrawals with no explanation for third-party access. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman concluded on balance of probabilities that the transactions were authorised by Miss C.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that both Miss C's genuine card and correct PIN were required and used for the disputed transactions. Miss C provided no credible explanation for how a third party could have obtained both her card and PIN, particularly given the four-hour gap between the last undisputed transaction and the disputed withdrawals. While Miss C suggested card cloning, Halifax's previous refund of similar transactions was made without evidence of cloning, suggesting this was unlikely. The ombudsman concluded that on balance of probabilities, the transactions were authorised by Miss C.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website