Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Lloyds refused to refund a £210 transaction he claimed he did not authorise, stating he was at a different location when it occurred. Lloyds' records showed the transaction was authenticated using Mr D's genuine debit card and correct PIN on the first attempt, with successful chip reading. The ombudsman found no plausible explanation for how an unauthorised party could have obtained the card, known the PIN, and made the transaction without Mr D's knowledge. The single transaction pattern was also inconsistent with typical fraud. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding the evidence indicated Mr D authorised the payment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that for an unauthorised transaction to have occurred, a third party would have needed to obtain Mr D's genuine card without his knowledge, know his correct PIN, make the transaction, and return the card unnoticed. No plausible explanation or evidence of compromise was presented. The successful reading of the chip and correct PIN entry on first attempt made it implausible that the card had been cloned. The single transaction pattern was inconsistent with typical fraud patterns. Therefore, the evidence indicated Mr D authorised the transaction.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website