Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr J complained that Starling Bank unfairly held him responsible for disputed transactions after his phone and debit card were stolen in early October 2025. He claimed he did not authorize the payments and reported them to Starling on 27 October 2025. The ombudsman examined technical evidence including IP address history, biometric authentication records, and transaction patterns. Finding that the IP address had been used over 700 times to access his other bank's online banking before the alleged theft, that biometrics remained unchanged, and that the transaction pattern (gambling merchants with credits returned) was atypical of fraud, the ombudsman concluded Mr J more likely authorized the transactions or permitted access. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to assess whether Mr J more likely than not authorized the transactions. The decision was based on multiple factors: the atypical nature of the fraudulent activity (gambling merchants sending credits back), the extensive prior use of the IP address on Mr J's device, the high number of logins from that IP address before the alleged theft, unchanged biometrics after the theft date, the raising of claims and requesting new cards (inconsistent with fraudster behavior), lack of evidence of malicious software, and Mr J's unexplained delay in reporting the theft and contacting Starling despite having alternative means of contact.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website