Partially upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as first direct

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S disputed a £500 ATM withdrawal from his credit card, claiming it was fraudulent. First direct declined to refund it, stating that both the physical card and correct PIN were required and Mr S could not explain how someone else obtained both. The FOS ombudsman found that technical evidence confirmed Mr S's genuine card and PIN were used, and while the possibility of someone known to Mr S making the withdrawal could not be ruled out, there was insufficient evidence to require the bank to refund the transaction. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that first direct's initial customer service call could have been handled better, and awarded £50 compensation for the trouble and upset caused.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and Consumer Credit Act 1974, determining that first direct is liable only if Mr S did not authorise the payment. The technical evidence confirmed Mr S's genuine card and PIN were used. While the ombudsman could not rule out the possibility that someone known to Mr S made the withdrawal without his knowledge, Mr S's testimony that no one he knows has access to his card or PIN, combined with the lack of any persuasive evidence of card cloning or other compromise, meant the ombudsman could not fairly require first direct to refund the transaction. However, the ombudsman found the initial customer service call could have been handled better, warranting compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website