A few transactions had not been verified in this way, so the bank attempted to charge them back. The merchant responded with information showing the account was set up in Denise’s name with her details, and a photocopy of her driver’s licence and card had been provided. The IP address used to make the gaming purchases was the same as the one Denise used to access her internet banking.
Denise asked the bank to reimburse her for the payments made to the gaming sites, but it declined to do so, saying the evidence suggested Denise herself had made the payments.
In reviewing the transactions, we found the gaming transactions usually followed a large transfer from another bank account in Denise’s name. She did not dispute she made these transfers. Furthermore, Denise repeatedly logged into her internet banking during the three months when the payments were being made and yet reported the payments only at the end of that period.
Denise had two cards and used them both for retail purchases, mainly at local shops. During the three-month period, she said she lost one card, but it was used on several occasions at the same time and at the same local shops as transactions she confirmed she had made on the other card. Two weeks after the disputed transactions started, there was deposit into her account at a local ATM using the card she said she lost. Video footage from the ATM showed a person who looked like Denise making the deposit. Also, her phone was used to authorise payments, and these included not only those she disputed, but also legitimate payments she confirmed she had made. Finally, Denise made statements to the bank, police and us about what had happened, and there were inconsistencies in her description of events.
We told her the evidence did not support a conclusion that the bank was required to reimburse her, and she withdrew her complaint.Print this page