Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained that Santander declined to refund disputed ATM transactions made from his account after his card was stolen at an event. Santander's technical evidence showed that Mr T's genuine card and the correct PIN were used for the withdrawals, with no failed PIN attempts. The ombudsman considered various scenarios for how an unauthorised person could have obtained the PIN but found none plausible, particularly given that Mr T had not used his card in the six days prior to the transactions and that no further attempts were made to use the card after it was blocked. The ombudsman concluded that either Mr T authorised the transactions or acted with gross negligence, and therefore upheld Santander's decision not to refund the disputed transactions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Service Regulations 2017 to determine whether the transactions were authorised. The technical evidence demonstrated that Mr T's genuine card and correct PIN were used, with no failed attempts. Given there are 10,000 possible four-digit PIN combinations, guessing the correct PIN on the first attempt was unlikely. The ombudsman considered various scenarios for PIN compromise (observation at the event, someone who knew Mr T) but found them implausible given the timeline and the fact that Mr T did not use his card in the six days before the transactions. The unusual pattern of card usage after theft (no further attempts once blocked, no balance check, funds remaining) suggested the user was aware the card had no further use, supporting the conclusion that someone known to Mr T was responsible. The ombudsman concluded that either Mr T authorised the transactions or acted with gross negligence by storing his PIN with his card, making it reasonable for Santander to hold him liable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website