DRN-6023870

The complaint Ms L has complained Capital One (Europe) plc won’t refund her for credit card transactions she didn’t authorise from 1 June 2023. What happened Ms L opened a credit card account with Capital One in April 2022. In 2025 Ms L contacted Capital One to report a missing credit card and PIN. Within a couple of weeks, she reported all the transactions that had taken place on her account since 1 June 2023 as fraudulent. She asked Capital One to refund her. She confirmed she has various medical conditions which make it very difficult for her to manage her finances. Ms L had not noticed these transactions earlier. Capital One believed they had enough evidence to show Ms L must have authorised these transactions so wouldn’t refund her. They continued to ask her to make repayments towards the outstanding debt. Ms L made no further repayments. Ms L brought her complaint to the ombudsman service. She didn’t believe Capital One had shown that she had authorised these transactions in terms of providing “concrete, verifiable evidence” as required by the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs). Our investigator noted that the transactions were executed using Ms L’s card details and were on occasion additionally verified using Ms L’s mobile app. Ms L had separately confirmed her phone remained in her possession throughout. Regular repayments were also made towards the credit card debt since June 2023. Our investigator felt the nature of the transactions didn’t match what we generally see when we consider fraudulent behaviour. She wasn’t going to ask Capital One to do anything further. Capital One has subsequently closed Ms L’s account, defaulted the debt and asked her to make repayments. Unhappy with this, Ms L has asked an ombudsman to consider her complaint. She has provided additional comments about the requirements of the PSRs to support her claim. She has also complained about Capital One asking her to repay the debt. Our investigator has explained our service expects customers to make repayments during the time we are considering their complaints. Ms L has also provided correspondence with the merchant (who I’ll call Q) when she raised her dispute with them about numerous transactions. 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, I’ve reached the same outcome as our investigator. I’ll explain why. Where there is a dispute about what happened, I have based my decision on the balance of

-- 1 of 3 --

probabilities. In other words, on what I consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the evidence. When considering what is fair and reasonable, I’m required to take into account: relevant law and regulations; regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and, where appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. To help me come to a decision, I’ve reviewed the evidence Capital One provided, which has included the technical information about how these transactions were authenticated. The law which is relevant to Ms L’s complaint is section 83 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974. These confirm a consumer credit consumer won’t be liable for the misuse of their credit facility – in this case Ms L’s credit card – unless they consented to the transactions themselves or allowed another person to use their credit facility. The PSRs also cover disputed transactions and require financial institutions to refund transactions in the case where a customer has not authorised these. I believe all of these transactions were authorised by Ms L. I say this because: • The transactions are executed using Ms L’s own card details. Capital One’s systems required additional authentication for some of these disputed transactions and the evidence shows this was provided within the Capital One app set up on Ms L’s mobile device. There’s no indication that Ms L hasn’t retained possession of her mobile throughout. • Some of the disputed transactions were verified using the genuine card and PIN. The merchants are those within an everyday high street. They are also the same as those used by Ms L when making undisputed transactions prior to June 2023. • There was an additional check carried out on 24 October when Capital One contacted Ms L to see whether the numerous transactions being made to Q were genuine. Despite Ms L denying this call was her, I am confident that it is. Capital One supplied a copy of the call to our service and during this Ms L confirms these transactions are genuine. • I have also seen evidence from Q. This confirms Ms L held an account with them. Transactions on her Capital One credit card occur from August 2022 to Q. These were not disputed. Q has stated that deliveries were made to Ms L’s home address. • These disputed transactions take place over an elongated period; nearly two years. This doesn’t match what we see in cases where an unknown person has access to someone’s card and card details. • Ms L has told us that she repaid the bill in full before the disputed use started. I can see three payments were made on 1 and 2 June 2023. These were for £1,763.38, £202.88 and £246.38 and paid the outstanding debt. However, as the card use continues, I can see repayments continue to be made. Some of these are direct debit payments for the minimum monthly payment and others are one-off payments using Ms L’s bank debit card. These have never been disputed. There are also two balance transfers from another credit card in Ms L’s name to her Capital One account. These were for £2,500 in November 2023 and £1,500 in March 2025. I have noted Ms L’s strength of feeling that she didn’t make the disputed transactions. I can see she’s told us that her external letterbox was destroyed. She believes this must be when her issues of disputed transactions, and ID theft, start. I’ve considered this.

-- 2 of 3 --

I’ve also considered the medical evidence she’s provided. This is not in dispute, and I appreciate the impact her condition this must have on her. That said and noting the technical evidence, I can see no other explanation for these transactions other than Ms L must have authorised and made these. I am satisfied that Capital One has met the requirements of the existing legislation to show Ms L authorised these transactions. Ms L has brought other complaints to our service about disputed credit card applications which have also had a bearing on my outcome here. I can’t explain what has provoked Ms L to bring these complaints. I stress that as part of my review; I have considered whether Ms L was a victim of ID theft and fraud. I don’t believe the evidence supports this. Looking at the tone of her submissions, including detailed references to existing legislation, it may have been suggested to her that she could use the consumer credit and payment services legislation to claim back money that she’d spent. This is not the case. My final decision For the reasons given, my final decision is not to uphold Ms L’s complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms L to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Sandra Quinn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --