Santander UK Plc · DRN-5997468

The complaint Mr P complains that Santander UK Plc (Santander) holds him liable for two disputed transactions on his account. What happened The details of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I will not repeat them again here. Instead, I will focus on the reasons for my decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, my review leads me to the same overall conclusion as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. I recognise this will be disappointing for Mr P, and I was sorry to hear about what happened and how it has affected him financially. I also do not doubt this was a scam, and I understand why Mr P feels Santander should refund his loss. But being the victim of a scam does not automatically mean the bank must provide a refund. My role is to determine what is fair in the circumstances presented, and I want to assure Mr P that I have not taken this decision lightly. The investigator’s view set out the full facts, the transactions in dispute, and the evidence provided. So, I will not repeat every detail here—only those that form the basis of my decision. If I have not mentioned something, it is not because I have ignored it. I am satisfied I do not need to comment on every individual point to reach what I believe is the right outcome. Our rules allow for this, reflecting the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. The relevant law is the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs), which broadly state that a customer is responsible for payments they have authorised, and not responsible for those they have not. So, the key question is whether Santander acted fairly in concluding that Mr P authorised the disputed transactions. Under the regulations, it does not matter if the payer is unaware of the exact amount being charged. If they authorise the payment using their genuine card and PIN—which is not disputed here—they are treated as having consented to it. Mr P accepts that he made two purchases with two separate merchants using his card and Personal Identification Number (PIN). However, he says that alongside the legitimate amounts he agreed to pay, two further payments were taken that he had not authorised or consented to.

-- 1 of 3 --

As Mr P confirms he used his card and PIN for the legitimate transactions, here I must determine whether the evidence suggests it is more likely than not that he also consented to the disputed amounts of £927.15 and £1,164.52. It is difficult to know exactly what happened when Mr P paid the two merchants. Mr P maintains he checked the card readers on inputting his PIN and believed he was authorising payments of $10 on both occasions – so there was nothing to suggest he was being charged anything other than the agreed amount. He says he only realised the additional amounts had been taken when he later checked his Santander account. Santander’s evidence shows the transactions occurred in quick succession, with no significant delays between them. The two genuine transactions were made within minutes of each other. However, on both occasions further transactions followed immediately afterwards, which Mr P disputes. Mr P, when asked, told Santander he had been asked to enter his PIN a couple of times due to connection issues with the payment terminals. And he says that he input his PIN consecutively without any break, which seems to be in line with the technical records presented by Santander, but there is no clear explanation for how it was possible for the amount he was charged to be changed within such a short space of time without Mr P having noticed. In summary, having reviewed the information provided, although I appreciate that Mr P did not knowingly consent to the £927.15 and £1164.52 payments, I do not think it was unreasonable that Santander did not suspect fraud or contact him before processing the payments and the evidence persuades me that Santander was fair in concluding he authorised the disputed transactions—albeit under false pretences. I am satisfied Santander acted appropriately in processing the transactions on the basis that they were authorised using Mr P’s genuine card and PIN and I have not seen anything to suggest the transactions were allowed because of something Santander did wrong. So, it follows that I do not require Santander to refund the disputed amounts. If Mr P feels he was misled by the merchants, he may pursue that with them directly. Finally, I can see Mr P has also raised concerns about Santander’s handling of his claim and believes that despite his reporting his concerns immediately and requesting the disputed payments be stopped from leaving his account, the bank’s actions delayed his prospects of pursuing a chargeback claim. Mr P has also detailed the impact this situation has had on him and says that Santander failed to protect him. Whilst our service considers its best practice for a bank to raise a chargeback in an attempt to recover disputed amounts from a merchant directly, we’d only expect a chargeback to be raised if there was reasonable chance of success. But here, given the way the transactions were most likely approved, a chargeback seems unlikely to have succeeded from the outset as Mr P believes. And I do not think this would have changed the outcome here or improved Mr P’s chances of recovery. However, I accept that this is something Santander could have communicated more clearly to Mr P. Being the victim of fraud can understandably be distressing, and I recognise Mr P felt that the bank’s actions lacked clarity and that although he was provided with reassurances on the time it would need to look into everything, the timescales presented were not correct. Overall, although I do not find that Santander acted unreasonably in how it handled Mr P’s claim, I agree with the investigator in that its communication could have been better and the

-- 2 of 3 --

inconvenience Mr P experienced, could have otherwise been avoided. So ,I consider an award of £75 is reasonable and fair in the circumstances. Putting things right To put things right, Santander should pay Mr P £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its service failures. My final decision For the reasons I have explained, my final decision is that I partly uphold Mr P’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Sukhdeep Judge Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --