Money Transfer Decision Reference 2022-0290

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Reference: 2022-0290
• Date: 29 August 2022
• Year: 2022
• Subject Matter: Money Transfer
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Handling of fraudulent transactions,Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code)

Decision Ref:

2022-0290

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Money Transfer

Conduct(s) complained of:

Handling of fraudulent transactions

Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code)

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The complaint concerns a disputed transaction where a third party debited a total of

€1024.67 (one thousand and twenty-four euro and sixty seven cent) from the Complainant's

account.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant received an email on 24 April 2020 at 18:07 from an address purporting to

be a courier service that advised her that action was required, in order to have a parcel re-

delivered. Upon clicking on the link included, the Complainant says that she was informed

that an additional charge of €2.50 (two Euro, fifty cent) was required in order to commence

the re-delivery. She states that this email communication happened to coincide with her

waiting for the return of an item from the repair section of an electronics company.

The Complainant sought to pay the fee with her debit card, held on her account with the

Provider, but that she was unsuccessful in obtaining a One Time Password (OTP). The

Complainant explains that she then used her credit card held with the Provider, and received

a OTP for the transaction. The Complainant states that as she “took it to relate to the

perceived redelivery fee” and she “failed to notice that the amount and payee were

different”.

The Complainant states that, on 28 April 2020 at 09:23, she checked her bank balance with

the Provider and found a transaction on her credit card that she did not recognise,

amounting to €1,024.67. The Complainant states that she immediately contacted the

Provider and cancelled the card, and the matter was referred to the Provider’s fraud