ClearBank Limited · DRN-6249697

The complaint Mr N, on behalf of Company “I”, complains that ClearBank Limited is holding him liable for two card transactions which he says he didn’t authorise. What happened The detailed background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, I’ll only provide a brief overview of some of the key events here. In November 2021, N took out a car hire agreement with “O” and when the hire period ended and the vehicle was collected, O debited £542.96 and £6,080.94 from his business account for damages beyond fair wear and tear. Mr N complained to ClearBank, arguing that under the hire agreement, driver liability was capped at £350 per incident, and therefore any debits above £350 were unauthorised. But ClearBank said Mr N was out of time to raise a chargeback dispute. It said he originally disputed the transactions on 6 November 2024, but he didn’t respond to its requests for further information and so the claim was closed. Mr N wasn’t satisfied and so he complained to this service, arguing that the transactions weren’t authorised. Bur investigator didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. She noted was satisfied the transactions had been authenticated using the correct card details and she noted Mr N had provided his card details to O for the purposes of taking monthly subscription payments, and that there were several undisputed transactions to O. She acknowledged that Mr N felt he’d only consented to transactions which were limited to £350, but she noted that the contact specified ‘You must pay for theft and damage costs, recovery fees, specialist cleaning charges, towing fees’ and so she was satisfied he had given his consent for O to debit his account and therefore the transactions were authorised. Commenting on the chargeback process, our investigator accepted Mr N had contacted ClearBank on 6 November 2024, but the claim was closed because he didn’t provide the information it asked for and she was satisfied that by the time he got back in touch, he was out of time to raise a chargeback dispute. Finally, she explained that we wouldn’t award compensation for distress caused to a limited company and that it isn’t in our remit to suggest internal reviews, changes to internal policy, or staff training. Mr N has asked for his complaint to be reviewed by an Ombudsman. He accepts he authorised O to charge his card, but he’s argued the consent wasn’t open ended and the contract defined limit that consent to £350 for damage. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 2 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’ve reached the same conclusion as our investigator. And for largely the same reasons. I know Mr N feels strongly about this complaint, and this will come as a disappointment to him, so I’ll explain why. Authorisation Authorisation has two limbs – authentication and consent. So, ClearBank needs to show the transaction was authenticated as well as showing Mr N consented to it. Authentication ClearBank has been ablet to show the transactions made using Mr N’s correct card details. So, I’m satisfied they were authenticated. Consent A payment out of someone’s account can only be treated as authorised if the payer has consented to it. So, the customer must have consented to a payment transaction taking place. There’s no dispute that Mr N gave his card details to O with the intention that they be used to take monthly payments from his business account. So, I’m satisfied that he gave consent for O to use his card details to take payments from his account. Mr N is arguing that the consent was limited to £350 per transaction because of the Reduced Damage Excess he agreed to, meaning any transaction above £350 was unauthorised. I’ve considered this argument and while I accept Mr N might have had scope to raise a dispute against O, I remain satisfied that he gave consent for O to use his card details to debit funds from his account, and in the absence of evidence that this consent was ever withdrawn, I’m satisfied the transactions were authorised. Chargeback There are specific time limits that must be applied to chargeback claims. The rules state that a chargeback claim can be brought no later than 120 days than the date of the transaction. In Mr N’s case, while he did contact ClearBank within the timeframe, the claim was closed because he failed to respond to its requests for further information and by the time he contacted it again, the deadline had passed. For the reasons I’ve explained, I can’t fairly tell ClearBank to do anything further to resolve this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask I to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Carolyn Bonnell Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --