Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6419529 of 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00. Card / payment disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6419529 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | Card / payment disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr S disputed a £3,620.83 payment made to a car dealership approximately nine minutes after he activated a new Tesco Bank credit card. He claimed he did not make the payment and later disclosed he had been targeted by a scam involving Royal Mail impersonation and remote access software. Tesco Bank refused to refund the payment, arguing it was authorised. The ombudsman examined technical evidence showing the payment was approved using Face ID on Mr S's device from the same location where the card was activated, and concluded the payment was authorised under the Payment Services Regulations 2017. The ombudsman rejected Mr S's arguments about lack of informed consent and remote access, finding that consent is an objective test based on the steps taken rather than the consumer's knowledge or intention, and that no remote access was detected during payment approval. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that consumers are responsible for authorised payments unless there is evidence of unauthorised use. The ombudsman concluded that the technical evidence demonstrated Mr S approved the payment on his own device using Face ID, from the same location where he activated the card minutes earlier. The ombudsman rejected Mr S's argument that he lacked informed consent, noting that consent under the PSRs is an objective test relating to the steps taken rather than the consumer's knowledge or intention. The ombudsman found that even if remote access had been used, it would not explain how the payment was approved using Mr S's Face ID. The ombudsman also concluded that nothing about the payment appeared suspicious enough to require Tesco Bank to intervene, and that a chargeback or Section 75 claim would not have been successful.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank, all decisions | 88 | 14% |
| Card / payment disputes, all decisions | 14,305 | 18% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 26,117 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website