TSB Bank plc · DRN-5815235

The complaint Mr H complains that TSB Bank plc (TSB) declines to refund him for a disputed transaction made on his account. What happened Mr H says that on attempting to withdraw £500 from his TSB account at an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) on 13 April 2025, the ATM did not dispense the cash, although the amount was still debited from his account. On investigating the matter, TSB didn’t think it was liable for his loss. One of our investigators reviewed the matter and upheld it in Mr H’s favour. She believed TSB had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the ATM had dispensed the money or that it had been free from technical faults at the time of the withdrawal. And so, she felt TSB should refund the £500, plus interest. But TSB disagreed with the investigator’s findings. It explained the ATM journal roll entry that it had provided, and confirmation from the ATM owner that the transaction was successful, demonstrated that the £500 was dispatched by the ATM. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint was 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. Where there’s a dispute about what happened, and the evidence is incomplete or contradictory, I must make my decision on the balance of probabilities – in other words, what I consider most likely to have happened in light of the available evidence. Having done so, I don’t find that TSB has provided sufficient evidence to show Mr H can be held liable for the £500 ATM withdrawal. And I agree with our investigator in that it should refund him for the loss including interest. I’ve explained why below. Firstly, the regulations relevant to this case - the Payment Service Regulations (PSR’s) 2017- generally state that TSB is entitled to hold Mr H liable for authorised transactions on his account, and that TSB is liable for any unauthorised transactions. So, this has been my consideration when deciding what is fair and reasonable in this case. Here it's clear there is no argument that Mr H was using the ATM to withdraw money, but he states that the £500 he requested was not dispensed, although his account was subsequently debited for the sum. Mr H says he would like the £500 he disputes refunded.

-- 1 of 3 --

I acknowledge that TSB has provided a journal roll which indicates that £500 was dispatched. However, from my experience, a journal roll alone is not conclusive evidence that the ATM operated correctly and without fault. Despite this service providing several opportunities for TSB to provide information relating to the purge bin from the ATM owner - which is considered essential in helping determine whether the cash had been dispensed or remained in the ATM - TSB stated it could not obtain information to this effect and directed this service to contact the ATM owner. I note our investigator explained that the responsibility sits with TSB to provide the necessary evidence, and given the absence of this information, I cannot be satisfied that TSB has provided sufficient convincing evidence that the ATM dispensed the cash to Mr H. It appears from what TSB has presented, that the ATM was reportedly balanced on 15 April 2025, two days after the disputed transaction. But I’m not persuaded this delay helps with providing certainty that there was no fault with the ATM, at the time that Mr H made the request. So, a fault cannot be totally ruled out. I have also considered Mr H’s account history. I note TSB has confirmed that he has been a customer since 2017 and has no record of any previous claim of a similar nature. So, I’ve no reason to disbelieve Mr H’s testimony. I’ve considered the possibility that Mr H could have provided his version of events as part of a scheme to defraud TSB by making a false claim. But having considered this carefully, on balance I don’t find that is the most likely explanation in the circumstances. And whilst it’s difficult to know for sure what happened, I find the information that has been provided supports the credibility of what he says happened at the ATM - and the information I’ve seen from TSB does not persuade me that this isn’t the most likely explanation here. Here it’s reasonable to say the onus is on TSB to prove that the transaction in dispute was authenticated and properly executed and that the ATM was not affected by any technical issue. But I am not satisfied that TSB has met that requirement. So, taking everything into account, because TSB has not shown with a fair degree of certainty that the money was dispensed, I am not satisfied that TSB can reasonably hold Mr H liable for it. Putting things right Based on the information provided, I consider it to be a fair for TSB to: • Refund the disputed £500 to Mr H’s account. • Pay 8% simple interest on this amount, from the date of the ATM transaction to the date of settlement. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint against TSB Bank plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Sukhdeep Judge

-- 2 of 3 --

Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --