Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Barclays refused to refund a £2,000 payment he claimed was unauthorised, alleging a taxi driver took his phone and altered an agreed £20 transfer without his consent. The ombudsman examined the technical evidence showing the payment was properly authenticated using Mr G's genuine device and security credentials. Finding the taxi driver's conduct implausible (requesting payment to his own identifiable account and not attempting a larger transfer despite higher available balance), the ombudsman concluded on balance that Mr G likely entered the £2,000 amount in error. Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, the transaction was treated as authorised and the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that a payment is authorised if the payer gave consent using the agreed method and process. The transaction was correctly authenticated using Mr G's genuine device and security credentials. Although Mr G claimed the taxi driver altered the amount without consent, the ombudsman found it implausible that a taxi driver would request payment to his own identifiable bank account if acting dishonestly, and noted that if the driver intended fraud, he would likely have attempted a larger transfer given the account balance. The ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that Mr G likely entered the £2,000 amount in error rather than it being altered by the driver. Under the PSRs, consent is assessed objectively and is not invalidated by claims of pressure or coercion if the authentication process was properly completed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website