Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B disputed £758.50 in transactions made via Apple Pay on his Zable credit card, claiming he did not authorize them and that they were made from a device not his own. An investigator upheld the complaint and directed a refund, but Zable rejected this finding. The ombudsman reversed the investigator's decision, finding that Mr B likely authorized the transactions based on: the absence of evidence his card or phone were compromised; his failure to report the suspicious Apple Pay notification despite receiving it; the 14-day delay between card addition and transaction use being atypical of fraud; and technical evidence supporting proper authentication. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was directed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr B likely authorized the transactions based on: (1) absence of evidence that his card details or mobile phone were compromised; (2) the fact that Mr B received notification of the card being added to Apple Pay but did not report it as suspicious, particularly given he had already set up Apple Pay on his own device; (3) the 14-day delay between card addition and transaction use being atypical of opportunistic fraud; and (4) the technical evidence and Mr B's acceptance of receiving the OTP suggesting proper authentication occurred. The ombudsman rejected the investigator's reasoning that inability to prove precise OTP input meant authentication failed, noting that even without full authentication evidence, a refund would not be directed if the consumer likely consented to the transactions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website