Not upheld: unauthorized transactions / disputed payments complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Barclays held him liable for £2,980 in disputed transactions made between December 2025 and January 2026, which he claimed were made by his minor nephew using Face ID to access his phone while he slept. Mr A stated he was taking prescription medication that impaired his awareness and prevented him from monitoring his account. The ombudsman found the transactions were authenticated using Mr A's genuine biometrics on his registered device and rejected the implausibility of the Face ID access while sleeping. The ombudsman noted Mr A logged into his account multiple times during the period and made genuine transactions, suggesting he should have noticed the disputed activity. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the disputed transactions were authenticated using Mr A's genuine biometrics on his registered device, which Barclays was entitled to treat as authorized. The ombudsman rejected Mr A's explanation that his nephew used Face ID while he was sleeping, finding it implausible as Face ID requires the user's eyes to be open. The ombudsman noted that Mr A logged into his account multiple times during the period and made genuine transactions, suggesting he should have been aware of the disputed activity. The presence of gambling winnings credited to his account contradicted his claim of receiving no benefit.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website