Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Paynetics UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms M complained that Paynetics UK Limited refused to refund transactions she claimed were made by an unauthorised individual who had stolen her phone and driving licence. The ombudsman examined technical evidence showing the transactions were made using Ms M's registered device with her correct passcodes and no failed login attempts. Ms M initially told Paynetics the thief obtained her passcode using her date of birth from her stolen driving licence, but later told the FOS she had no idea how the thief accessed her passcodes and that her passcode was not linked to her date of birth. Finding these inconsistencies made her testimony unreliable, the ombudsman concluded it was highly unlikely an unauthorised third party could have guessed both passcodes correctly without triggering failed attempts. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Ms M's testimony was unreliable due to significant inconsistencies between her initial account to Paynetics and her later account to the FOS. The technical evidence showed transactions were made using her registered device with correct passcodes and no failed attempts. The ombudsman concluded that for an unauthorised third party to have made the transactions, they would have needed to correctly guess both her mobile phone passcode and her Paynetics passcode without triggering failed attempts and within three seconds, which the ombudsman found highly unlikely on the balance of probabilities. The ombudsman also rejected arguments about inadequate fraud detection, noting that even if Paynetics had intervened, the third party would have had access to any warnings and could confirm 3DS transactions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website