DRN-6235482

THE COMPLAINT Mr C’s complaint is about Lendable Ltd (trading as Zable). WHAT HAPPENED The circumstances of this complaint are well known to all parties concerned, so I will not repeat them again here in detail. However, I will provide an overview. In November 2025, eight payment transactions of £140 each and one transaction of £200 were made on Mr C’s Zable credit card account (together, “the Transactions”). All of the Transactions were made via Apple Pay to ‘Ikea Ltd 702 Oxford EX’. Mr C says that he did not authorise the Transactions and is seeking a refund. Mr C disputed the above with Zable. When Zable refused to reimburse him, he raised a complaint, which he then referred to this Service. One of our investigators considered the complaint and did not uphold it, which Zable accepted. As Mr C did not accept the investigator’s findings, this matter has now been passed to me to make a decision. WHAT I HAVE 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 find that the investigator at first instance was right to reach the conclusion she did. This is for reasons I set out in this decision. I would like to say at the outset that I have summarised this complaint in far less detail than the parties involved. I want to stress that no discourtesy is intended by this. If there is a submission I have not addressed, it is not because I have ignored the point. It is simply because my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issues in this complaint. Further, under section 225 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, I am required to resolve complaints quickly and with minimum formality. Key findings The regulations which apply in this matter are the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (“the PSRs”). Under the PSRs, the starting point is that Mr C is liable for authorised payment transactions, and, subject to certain exceptions, Zable is liable for unauthorised payment transactions.

-- 1 of 3 --

Two conditions must be met for a payment transaction to be authorised: authentication and consent. The Transactions in this matter appear to have been authenticated correctly. Therefore, I address consent below. Mr C disputes that he authorised the Transactions. In other words, Mr C says he did not consent to the money leaving his account. Therefore, the issue I must decide, on the balance of probabilities, is whether a third party made the Transactions without Mr C’s authority. If I find that Mr C did not consent, he may be entitled to a refund. If I find that Mr C did consent – either because he made the Transactions himself or because he provided authority (actual or apparent) to someone else to make them – he will be liable for the Transactions and not entitled to a refund. The Transactions were made using Apple Pay on a device. Mr C has confirmed that he received the one-time passcode (“OTP”) required to set up Apple Pay and that he entered this code into his mobile banking app. He says that he did not share the OTP with anyone and that he has never lost his mobile device. I am also mindful that Mr C has not provided any persuasive explanation or evidence to show that either the OTP and/or his mobile device were compromised. There are two striking features of this complaint. First, the Apple Pay in question was set up approximately 19 days before the Transactions took place. Second, Mr C’s account balance was not depleted as a result of the alleged fraud. These features are not indicative of the behaviour typically associated with an opportunistic fraudster who has gained control of someone else’s account. In particular, it seems unusual, to my mind, that such a fraudster would wait for such a prolonged period before making the Transactions and/or would also not deplete the account balance. Based on the above, I find that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr C consented to the Transactions, either by making them himself or by providing authority (actual or apparent) to a third party to do so. Mr C argues that Zable should have contacted Ikea to establish where the goods purchased by the Transactions were delivered. I do not consider that identifying the delivery destination would have had any bearing on my findings about consent (see above). Mr C also argues that Zable should have intervened in the Transactions given their value and pattern. Even if I were to agree with this point, I do not find that such an intervention would have made a difference in the circumstances, given my findings on consent. Taking all the above points together, I do not find that Zable has done anything wrong. Therefore, I will not be directing Zable to refund Mr C the Transactions. In my judgment, this is a fair and reasonable outcome in the circumstances of this complaint. MY FINAL DECISION For the reasons set out above, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 14 May 2026. Tony Massiah Ombudsman

-- 2 of 3 --

-- 3 of 3 --