DRN-6160158

The complaint Mr M complains The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company (“RSB”) refuses to refund him for unauthorised transactions from his account. What happened The facts of this case are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them in detail here. In short, Mr M says he set up an account with RBS in November 2024 but never used it. Then, in August 2025, he received a letter from RBS saying he hadn’t used his account in six months and had an outstanding overdraft of £3,250. Mr M complained to RBS that he hadn’t made these payments so they should all be refunded as unauthorised. RBS considered Mr M’s complaint but didn’t uphold it. He then brought his complaint to us. And investigator completed an independent review of all the evidence and information in this case, but wasn’t persuaded the transactions were unauthorised, so he didn’t instruct RBS to refund them. Mr M 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. Generally speaking, RBS is required to refund any unauthorised payments made from Mr M’s account. Those rules are set out in the Payment Service Regulations 2017. Mr M has said he didn’t carry out the transactions in dispute. I then have to give my view on whether I think Mr M did authorise the transactions or not. Mr M says he hadn’t made the payments in dispute, and when he made his complaint to RBS, he discovered that the email address and phone number on the account was incorrect. Mr M says he doesn’t remember adding any phone number or email address to his application form, but he does remember applying for this account. RBS has provided the record of the application Mr M made online in November 2024. This includes Mr M’s personal details, his correct address, photos of his driving licence and a selfie of himself to prove his identity. So, I think it’s likely this application was completed by Mr M. Included on this application form is a phone number and email address - even though Mr M says he didn’t include these.

-- 1 of 2 --

The 17 disputed transactions on the account were all completed via faster payment. TSB has provided evidence that these transactions were completed on the same device that was used to open the account. Mr M says he doesn’t know the payees, but the evidence shows these were set up and the payments were made on the same device he used to set up this account and were verified by an OTP sent to the number included on the application form which Mr M completed. There is no evidence that the contact details were changed after the application was made or that someone else had access to Mr M’s device. So, it seems likely he made these payments from his own device and had access to the phone number added to the account. Mr M is adamant that these payments should be refunded as he hadn’t made them himself. However, the evidence shows that the application form included his information, along with pictures of himself and his driving licence. The evidence also shows that the same device that set up the account was used for the disputed transactions. And I haven’t seen any persuasive evidence of how someone else could’ve made these transactions without Mr M’s knowledge and consent. So, I think it’s likely there were made by Mr M, and so I don’t think RBS ought to refund them. Mr M also complained about the service received from RBS as well as the fact that he is unhappy he is being pursued for this debt. However, RBS made the finding that these transactions were authorised, and they decided to hold Mr M liable for this, so they are within their rights to pursue him for the money he owes. RBS are not obliged to pause their account management while we investigate a complaint, so I can’t say RBS has done anything wrong here. As acknowledged by the investigator, there were some delays in providing a resolution for Mr M’s complaint. However, RBS kept him informed of the progress and I can’t say that overall, the time it took to provide an outcome was unreasonable. I understand that this situation must be distressing for Mr M, but I’ve not been persuaded that the transactions were unauthorised, and I don’t think RBS has done anything wrong here. My final decision I am not upholding your complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Sienna Mahboobani Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --