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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Barclaycard failed to refund a £3,980 transaction he claimed he did not authorise. Mr B alleged he was drugged and incapacitated at a nightclub and coerced into making the payment. Barclaycard maintained that the payment was authorised because Mr B's card and PIN were used. The ombudsman found that while it was plausible Mr B was targeted and coerced, the evidence showed his app was accessed using his secure passcode and his PIN was viewed before the payment, indicating his involvement. Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, the transaction was authorised even if obtained through coercion or deception, as the regulations do not require informed consent. The ombudsman also found Barclaycard was not unreasonable in not declining the payment beforehand. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that a transaction is authorised if the payer carried it out or authorised someone else to make it on their behalf. The key finding was that Mr B's app was accessed using his secure passcode and his PIN was viewed prior to the payment, indicating he was involved in the transaction in some way. While the ombudsman found it plausible that Mr B was targeted, coerced, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the PSRs do not require 'informed consent' - consent under the PSRs is valid even if obtained through deception, coercion, or while under the influence. Therefore, the payment was authorised. The ombudsman also found that Barclaycard was not unreasonable in not declining the payment beforehand, as it did not appear particularly suspicious given Mr B's transaction history and credit limit.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website