Santander UK Plc · DRN-6258537

The complaint Mr and Mrs S complain that Santander UK Plc has declined to refund disputed transactions that were made from their account. What happened In April 2025, several ‘card not present’ transactions totalling £523.79 were made from Mr and Mrs S’ Santander account to an online marketplace. Mr and Mrs S say they didn’t make or authorise these transactions. When they discovered them, they contacted Santander’s fraud department to report them as unrecognised and asked it to refund the money. But the bank didn’t believe it was liable for their loss. Unhappy with this, Mr and Mrs S made a complaint. In response, Santander said: • Mrs S has an existing relationship with the merchant, and the disputed transactions were made using her account with that merchant. • It would suggest she contacts the merchant directly if she wanted to take things further. • The decision to decline a refund remains unchanged. Mr and Mrs S then referred their account to this service where it was considered by one of our investigators. Having considered the available evidence, he didn’t uphold the complaint, as he couldn’t find a plausible explanation as to how Mrs S’ card details were compromised. Mr and Mrs S didn’t agree with our investigator’s findings. Mrs S provided details of her communications with the online marketplace who appear to have accepted the transactions were fraudulent and referred her back to her bank for a chargeback to be raised. She also provided what she says are details of some of the orders, including the addresses goods were sent to, which she says she obtained from the delivery companies directly. The addresses and names do not relate to Mr or Mrs S. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint was passed to me to decide, and I issued a provisional decision on 12 March 2026. I said the following: ‘What I’ve provisionally 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 intend to require Santander refund the disputed transactions to Mr and Mrs S. The relevant regulations here are the Payment Services Regulations 2017. In general terms, the bank is liable if the customer didn’t authorise the payments, and the customer is liable if they did authorise them. So, what I have to decide here is whether it’s more likely than not that Mr or Mrs S, authorised the disputed debit card transactions.

-- 1 of 3 --

Santander is of the belief that Mr or Mrs S authorised the disputed transactions because Mrs S’ own marketplace account was used, and the transactions were linked to their own internet protocol (IP) address. It’s further said that the marketplace account is used very often and many genuine transactions have been made during the period the disputed transactions took place. It doesn’t believe the pattern of the transactions is that of typical fraud. And says all it has is Mr and Mrs S’ word that the transactions are fraudulent, with absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case. Santander also believes that if the marketplace believed the transactions were fraudulent, then it would’ve refunded Mr and Mrs S under its own process. So as this didn’t happen, the bank seems to believe the marketplace is of the view that the transactions are genuine. But Mrs S has provided us with an email from the marketplace, which says the following: ‘We've investigated the charge made to your payment card of £525.27 and can confirm that it was the result of the unauthorised use of your card number. These payments were taken on the 7th of April and it's already marked as unauthorised activity on the customer's account. Since the orders are already marked as unauthorised activity, we don't have access to any details about it such as the address or the names. Please contact the bank that issued this payment card and report the charge as unauthorised. To receive a refund, you'll need to contact the bank that issued the card. The bank will send you some paperwork to sign to verify any unauthorised charge. Your bank will then pass the appropriate paperwork to us.’ But because Santander didn’t accept that these transactions were unauthorised, it didn’t attempt to contact the marketplace as it had suggested. The appropriate method of doing so would’ve been by way of chargeback. A chargeback is a process in which a card provider can seek to reclaim funds from a merchant under the relevant card scheme. A chargeback isn’t an automatic right, however our service considered its good practice for a card provider to raise one if there is any chance of success, in an attempt to recover disputed money for its customer. Here, whilst I know it disagrees, I find it would’ve been entirely appropriate for Santander to raise a chargeback. It says there is absolutely no evidence of fraud, but that’s precisely what a chargeback is for – an attempt to obtain information about a transaction(s) to see if it’s linked to its customer or not. Here, Mrs S was referred back to Santander by the marketplace numerous times, saying it should raise a chargeback. And, in view of the email from the marketplace and the information Mrs S says she obtained from the delivery companies, I’m satisfied, on balance, that this would’ve resulted in a positive outcome for Mr and Mrs S. Overall, whilst I appreciate that Mrs S’ own marketplace account and IP address were used for the disputed transactions – that doesn’t mean Mr or Mrs S authorised them. Whilst I don’t know how or why someone was able to allegedly place orders from Mrs S’ own account, Mrs S’ actions do not strike me as someone who is trying to purposely defraud the bank by making a false fraud claim, and this matter could’ve been easily resolved by way of chargeback. By not raising one, I find Santander has unfairly disadvantaged Mr and Mrs S. And in view of the information I’ve seen from both the marketplace itself (the email above), and the delivery addresses for the orders Mrs S has provided, allegedly from the delivery companies, I’m not satisfied that the transactions were carried out by an authorised individual. I do not consider that Santander has done enough to evidence that the disputed transactions were authorised by Mr or Mrs S, and so I’ve provisionally decided that it should

-- 2 of 3 --

refund their loss, plus interest.’ Responses to my provisional decision Mr and Mrs S provided copies of emails from the online marketplace referring Mrs S back to their bank, and Mrs S also reiterated that the online marketplace told her Santander are supposed to fill in a form. Santander didn’t respond to my provisional 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. I’d like to thank Mrs S for her further comments. I believe the forms she referred to are in relation to Santander raising a chargeback, which I covered in my provisional decision. So aside from the above, as neither party has provided anything further for me to consider, I see no reason to depart from my provisional findings. I remain satisfied that Santander hasn’t done enough to evidence that the disputed transactions were authorised by Mr or Mrs S. As such, I don’t find that Santander is entitled to hold Mr and Mrs S liable for the transactions they’ve disputed. And so I require it to refund them, plus interest. Putting things right My final decision is that Santander UK Plc must: • Refund the disputed £525.27 to Mr and Mrs S. • Pay 8% simple interest per year on this amount, from the date of the disputed transactions to the date of settlement (less any tax lawfully deductible). My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S and Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Lorna Wall Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --