TSB Bank plc · DRN-6166777

The complaint Mr and Mrs D have complained TSB Bank plc won’t refund them for a cash machine withdrawal that wasn’t successfully completed. What happened Mr and Mrs D have held a joint account with TSB for many years. As this complaint is about what happened when Mr D attempted to use a cash machine, I have referred to him mainly throughout this decision. On 16 September 2025 Mr D used a cash machine at a local supermarket to withdraw money for cash presents for a couple of grandchildren. He requested £50 at 11:19. A message flashed up on the screen saying, “dispensing error”. No money or receipt was issued. Mr D went into the supermarket to ask them about what may have happened. He was told he’d need to contact TSB but that it may just sort itself out so to keep an eye out on his statements. After the weekend, things hadn’t righted themselves. Mr D contacted TSB. His account was credited with £50. He then got a letter from TSB confirming that after further investigation, TSB believed there was no fault with the cash machine, and they’d be re- debiting him. Mr D complained to TSB, but they believed they’d done nothing wrong. Unhappy with this outcome, Mr D brought his complaint to the ombudsman service. Our investigator noted the evidence but felt he had received insufficient evidence from TSB to substantiate their view there’d been no error. He asked TSB to refund Mr D. TSB didn’t believe they were under any obligation to carry out further investigation or refund Mr D. They’ve asked an ombudsman to consider Mr D’s complaint. 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 probabilities. In other words, on what I consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the evidence. It’s worth stating that I can choose which weight to place on the different types of evidence I review, including technical evidence, provided by financial institutions along with complainants’ persuasive testimony. 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

-- 1 of 3 --

appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. In this case the Payment Services Regulations 2017 are relevant as they require financial institutions to show transactions were properly executed. I’m also aware that there are interbank mechanisms which enable financial institutions to share data about disputed cash machine withdrawals. To help me come to a decision, I’ve reviewed the evidence TSB provided as well as what Mr D has told us. I don’t believe Mr D received the money he requested from the cash machine on 16 September 2025. I say this because: • Mr D’s testimony has been consistent throughout that he didn’t receive any funds from the cash machine withdrawal he attempted at 11:19 on 16 September 2025. Mr D regularly uses a cash machine to withdraw the cash he needs for regular expenditure. According to his testimony he allowed another customer to use the cash machine in front of him and then hung around for a bit after he’d seen the message advising there was a dispensing error, before going into the supermarket to ask what may have happened. • TSB has provided evidence of the journal roll from the cash machine owner. This shows Mr D’s card being used with a withdrawal then made for £50. This journal roll specifies five £10 notes were dispensed. • TSB has confirmed they contacted the cash machine owner and was told that when the cash machine was balanced two days later, there was no discrepancy registered. • I have considered whether Mr D may just have been mistaken and in fact received all the money he requested or is in fact lying. But I’m not sure why I should believe Mr D was mistaken or lying. This feels rather insulting to him. I also note his testimony that he raised his concern immediately with the supermarket whose cash machine he was using, which suggests his actions match what he believed had happened. • I don’t only rely on the cash machine journal roll. I would normally expect to see more data from the bank along with what may have been included within the purge bin. I appreciate TSB has confirmed they were told there were no issues with the cash machine in question or there was no cash difference, but I can’t rule out something may have occurred which isn’t obvious from the journal roll alone. • As our investigator has confirmed to TSB, there is an obligation to show the successful execution of the transaction. I’m not satisfied I’ve seen this here. I’ve taken into account Mr D’s testimony. • TSB has provided no evidence why Mr D must be mistaken or lying, nor have they confirmed Mr D has any history of previous fraud claims. I note TSB’s strenuous objections around the evidence our service requests to verify as much as possible the success or otherwise of cash machine dispense. They have also highlighted another case to our investigator suggesting that investigator correctly interpreted the evidence. I’d just say that in my experience of considering these types of complaints, the evidence and testimonies are both effectively considered and taken into account when deciding what is the right outcome. The specifics of many of these cases do differ. On balance, I don’t believe there’s enough here to show the withdrawal was completed

-- 2 of 3 --

successfully. Putting things right TSB will need to refund £50 to Mr D along with 8% simple interest from 16 September 2025. My final decision For the reasons given, my final decision is to instruct TSB Bank plc to: • Refund £50 to Mr and Mrs D; and • Add 8% simple interest from 16 September 2025 to the date of settlement. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D and Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 7 April 2026. Sandra Quinn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --