Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A claimed that £12,340 in unauthorised faster payments were made from his HSBC account after he misplaced his iPhone 16 in December 2025. He alleged an employee may have stolen the phone from his office desk and used it to make transactions while he was overseas. HSBC refused to refund the transactions, arguing the perpetrator would have needed Mr A's security credentials and questioning the delay in reporting. The ombudsman found Mr A's account contained multiple inconsistencies: some transactions were made on his replacement iPhone 17 (not the stolen iPhone 16), both devices were overseas during the transactions, and app logins from the iPhone 17 occurred in December 2025 before he claimed to have registered it. Given the biometric protection on both devices and the implausibilities in Mr A's testimony, the ombudsman concluded the transactions were likely authorised and upheld HSBC's refusal to refund.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the two-limb test for authorisation: authentication and consent. HSBC demonstrated the transactions were authenticated via biometric access to the online banking app. Regarding consent, the ombudsman found Mr A's testimony inconsistent and implausible: some transactions were made on the iPhone 17 (contradicting his claim they were made on the stolen iPhone 16), both devices were overseas (contradicting his claim the iPhone 16 was stolen from his office while he was away), and multiple logins from the iPhone 17 occurred in December 2025 (contradicting his claim he didn't notice transactions until registering the iPhone 17 at the end of January). The ombudsman concluded Mr A likely consented to the transactions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website