Starling Bank Limited · DRN-6190993

The complaint Mr L says Starling Bank Limited (“Starling”) refuses to refund him for transactions on his account he says he didn’t authorise. What happened The facts of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them in detail here. In short, Mr L disputes 23 payments made from his Starling account to a gambling site in December 2025. Mr L says he doesn’t have an account with the site in question, and he didn’t make any of these transactions. So, Mr L says Starling should refund these as unauthorised. Mr L also says this situation has left him in financial difficulty, and Starling has not supported him in this. Starling considered Mr L’s complaint but ultimately didn’t refund any of the transactions as it believes Mr L was responsible for them. It offered Mr L an overdraft to help him through a tough financial time and signposted external organisations that could also help. But it refused to give Mr L any of this money back. Unhappy with Starling’s response Mr L brought his complaint to our Service. Our investigator completed an independent review of this complaint and came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not Mr L authorised all the transactions in dispute. She also looked at the service Mr L received from Starling and the support it offered him when in need. Overall, she didn’t feel Starling had done anything wrong, so she didn’t award any compensation. Mr L wasn’t happy with this outcome, so the complaint has been passed to me for a final 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. Before I set out my thoughts, I want to acknowledge that I have summarised this complaint briefly and, in less detail, than has been provided. I’ve focused on what I think is the heart of the matter. Please rest assured that while I may not comment on every point raised, I have considered it. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. Our rules allow me to do this and reflect the fact that we are an informal service and a free alternative for consumers to the courts. As set out by the investigator, Mr L is liable for authorised transactions on his account and Starling would be liable for unauthorised transactions. Mr L says he didn’t make any of these transactions, but Starling says it thinks he did. So, in order for me to come to a conclusion

-- 1 of 3 --

here I need to consider the evidence I have on the authentication and consent of the payments to come to a decision on what think is more likely to have happened. The evidence provided from Starling shows that the ApplePay transactions were completed on Mr L’s device with his Starling card - which had been linked to his ApplePay for some time. And as these were completed on his device, the passcode or biometrics registered on his device would be needed to complete the payments. The card payments were made using Mr L’s card, which he says was in his possession at the time. There is also evidence that for the card payment of £10 to this gambling site, an additional security step was completed which required approval in Mr L’s banking app. So, I am satisfied that all the payments were correctly authenticated. Mr L argues that just because these were completed or approved on his device, doesn’t mean he made them or consented to them. And he says he doesn’t even have an account with the gambling site in question. I’ve considered what Mr L has said, but I can’t see any explanation as to how someone else could’ve completed these transactions without Mr L’s consent, so I think it’s likely they were completed by him or with his authority. I say this because Mr L says he had his device and he hasn’t shared his passcode or online banking details with anyone else. He also says he hasn’t downloaded any suspicious software or received any suspicious calls or messages in the lead up to these transactions. And as the systems recorded the transactions as being made or approved from Mr L’s device, there is no other way an unknown third party would’ve been able to complete these transactions without access to his device and banking apps. Mr L says he doesn’t have an account with the merchant in question. I haven’t seen that anyone reached out to the gambling site to ask it, but I don’t think a scammer is likely to sign up to a gambling site using someone else’s banking account. I say this because there is no way for the scammer to get access to any winnings unless they also have full access to the account. And if they had, I think they would’ve drained the account in cash in order to get maximum profit, instead of taking risks by gambling the money. I’ve considered what Mr L has said about Starling refusing a temporary refund of the disputed amounts, and about the financial difficulty he is now in. I am sorry to hear Mr L is struggling. But there is no obligation for Starling to provide a temporary credit in these circumstances, it is at their discretion. I have seen that Starling provides an overdraft facility and have also offered support from their financial health team. I think Starling has acted reasonably overall, and I can’t say it has done anything wrong here that warrants any compensation. I believe our investigator also signposted some useful organisations which might be able to help Mr L. Overall, I am not convinced anyone other than Mr L could’ve made these payments, so it follows then that I think Mr L is most likely made these transactions himself. I also don’t think Starling have done anything wrong which warrants a payment of compensation. So, I am not asking Starling to do anything further. My final decision I am not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Sienna Mahboobani

-- 2 of 3 --

Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --