Zempler Bank Limited · DRN-6245119

The complaint A company, which I’ll refer to as N complains that Zempler Bank Limited won’t refund unauthorised transactions made from N’s account. What happened Mrs A, who is a director of N, brings the complaint on N’s behalf. Four transactions, totalling just over £5,300, were carried out from N’s account with Zempler on 24 and 25 August 2025. Three of these payments were carried out via Chip and PIN and one via contactless. Mrs A contacted Zempler to complain about the payments, advising that she’d lost her wallet and card when on holiday in Canada. Zempler asked Mrs A several questions including whether she’d written down or shared her PIN, to which Mrs A advised she hadn’t. As three of the payments were carried out via chip and PIN and Mrs A confirmed she hadn’t shared or written her PIN down Zempler advised they couldn’t identify a PIN compromise and declined to refund the payments. However, Zempler accepted they’d caused a delay in investigating the disputed transactions so credited N £40 compensation for the inconvenience caused. Mrs A wasn’t satisfied with their response so complained to our service. One of our Investigator’s looked into Mrs A’s complaint but didn’t uphold it. On contacting Zempler, they offered to refund the contactless payment advising they’d made an error in their initial assessment. However, our Investigator also couldn’t determine a PIN compromise so didn’t uphold N’s complaint. So, they recommended that Zempler refund N £71.30 plus 8% interest Mrs A didn’t agree, in response she reiterated that she hadn’t written down or shared her PIN. And she can’t understand how a fraudster could have obtained it. Mrs A also queried why Zempler hadn’t identified the fraudulent transactions and contacted her to ask if they were genuine payments. As Mrs A didn’t agree it’s been passed to me to decide. 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’ve seen evidence that the three remaining disputed transactions were authenticated via chip and PIN. However, on its own this isn’t sufficient for Zempler to hold N liable for the payments. They also need to conclude, on balance, N consented to them. And I’m satisfied it’s fair for them to do so, I’ll explain why below:

-- 1 of 2 --

The disputed transactions were carried out via chip and PIN. This means for a fraudster to carry out the payments, without Mrs A’s knowledge, they’d have needed access to her physical card and PIN. Mrs A has advised her card was stolen – so this explains how a fraudster could have gained access to this and carried out the payments. However, I’m unable to explain how a fraudster could have successfully obtained the PIN without her knowledge. I say this because Mrs A’s explained she didn’t write her PIN down or share it with anyone. And she’s never used the PIN before on this card – meaning it couldn’t have been shoulder surfed or obtained any other way. I’m afraid this means it’s not possible to explain how a fraudster could have successfully obtained her PIN without Mrs A’s knowledge. And I can only conclude that Mrs A authorised the disputed transactions. I appreciate Mrs A’s also argued that the size and location of the payments should have led to intervention from Zempler. I’ve thought about what Mrs A’s said, and I accept the payments were large and being international payments carry greater risk. However, I’m also aware that the payments were authenticated via the physical card and PIN – which reduces the risk of potential fraud. Even if I did think Zempler should have intervened and contacted Mrs A regarding the transactions as I’ve concluded on balance Mrs A consented to them I can’t safely say this would have made a difference. I realise this will disappoint Mrs A but for the reasons I’ve explained above I’m satisfied it’s fair for Zempler to hold N liable and I won’t be asking them to do anything further. Putting things right I’m satisfied that Zempler should refund N £71.30 plus 8% interest from the date of the payment to the date of the settlement. My final decision My final decision is I partially uphold N’s complaint and direct Zempler Bank Limited to: • Pay N £71.30 plus 8% interest from 24 August 2025 to the date of settlement If Zempler Bank Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell N how much it’s taken off. It should also give N a tax deduction certificate if they ask for one, so they can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask N to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Jeff Burch Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --