POCKIT LIMITED · DRN-6043395

The complaint Mr D complains about the level of service he received from POCKIT LIMITED (‘Pockit’) after a payment was taken from his account which he did not make or otherwise authorise. What happened The circumstances of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I will not go into every detail of what happened here. But in summary, a Mr D noticed a payment of over £500 left his account which he did not make or otherwise authorise. He raised his concerns with Pockit, who did reimburse him some time later and offered him £25 as a gesture of goodwill. Mr D remained dissatisfied as he did not think the £25 gesture of good will suitably recognised the distress and inconvenience Pockit had caused him. One of our investigators looked into what happened and recommended that his complaint should be upheld and that Pockit should pay £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it caused. Pockit did not agree, so the case has 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. It appears that it is common ground that Mr D did not make or otherwise authorise the transaction which was originally disputed, so the matter remaining for me to decide on is whether Pockit should pay Mr D to compensate him for service issues which led to inconvenience and distress. Reimbursement of loss The regulations relevant to this complaint – The Payment Services Regulations 2017 – set out that the financial firm that acted as the payment service provider must refund the amount of the unauthorised transaction to the payer, and that this must be done “as soon as practicable, and in any event no later than the end of the business day following the day on which it becomes aware of the unauthorised transaction”. In practical terms this can be provided on a temporary basis, and re-debited from the account if their investigations later discover that the payment was in fact made or otherwise authorised by the account holder. Mr D got in touch with Pockit to dispute the payment on 3 September 2025, but it did not provide any refund to his account until the 12 September. Pockit argues that it followed its standard process it does in every dispute. It said it tells customers to first dispute it with the merchant to give them a chance to acknowledge any error. It says this is an industry-standard step and often results in a faster resolution. It said that Mr D confirmed he had already contacted the merchant and not received a reply, and it said it told him he would have to wait for the merchant’s timescales. Pockit said that once it became clear that no response was going to be forthcoming from the

-- 1 of 3 --

merchant, it escalated the matter and filed the dispute through the chargeback system. At this point it reimbursed the customer whilst the outcome was outstanding. I do think that Pockit failed to adhere to the provisions of the Payment Services Regulations here with the speed of the refund. The processes it describes relate simply to the chargeback scheme is was raising a dispute through. I do appreciate that when Mr D got in touch he referenced a dispute or chargeback, but he also made it clear that the payment was not authorised by him. The process Pockit followed may be perfectly suitable to other types of chargeback, but as Mr D confirmed he had not authorised the transaction it should have followed the Payment Services Regulations and reimbursed the disputed payment no later than the end of the business day following his initial report. Delays in investigation and requests for further information Pockit asked Mr D about his links to a named individual. This was because the information received from the merchant referenced this named person, and Mr D had paid someone with the same name previously – last paying him in 2020. I do not think this was unreasonable in the circumstances, and I do not think this had an undue negative impact on Mr D. Mr D has presented our service with evidence of numerous emails he had to sent to Pockit before an investigation was underway. He was twice asked to complete a chargeback form. It also appears that Pockit told Mr D he had to contact the merchant itself and provide it with their response before it would consider his claim. Mr D had already tried to contact the merchant himself three times, and provided the evidence of this. Pockit told Mr D that he had to wait until he had received a response from the merchant before it could do anything. It said once they had heard back from the merchant, it might close the complaint or raise a chargeback. Information given about a £0 authorisation on Mr D’s account Mr D noticed that there was a charge for £0 from the merchant which had taken the disputed transaction. Understandably, this caused him some concern as it was the same merchant who had taken funds previously without his authorisation, and he had taken steps to cancel his card by this point. So, he got in touch with Pockit on 26 September. Pockit did not respond until 9 October, and initially gave him incorrect information about this £0 charge. The following day it corrected what it had said, explaining that this appeared as a result of the chargeback being made. Pockit acknowledges that incorrect information was initially given but that it corrected this the following day with an apology. It says that the idea that this contributed to ongoing distress is ‘unreasonable’ when the matter was addressed and resolved immediately once accurate data became available. How did Pockit’s delay in reimbursement, handling of the investigation and handling of the £0 authorisation matter impact Mr D? Mr D has explained the impact of the delayed reimbursement. He said that he was left in a position of financial hardship which caused him both distress and inconvenience. It is clear from reviewing the account statement that the disputed transaction did clear most of his account balance. Mr D said that the funds were to be used to cover essential bills and subscriptions. He said the failure to reimburse him in a suitably timely manner meant he had to ration his spending and delay payments. Mr D has demonstrated that Pockit caused him inconvenience in that he had to email it

-- 2 of 3 --

numerous times before it seemed his dispute was being looked into. He was nervous when it told him that he had to wait for the merchant to respond and that it might then close his complaint – it made him think that he may never see the funds back. He said the continuous back and forth which Pockit made him feel like he was making no progress. The incorrect information being given to him was corrected within a day, but it would not have imbued him with confidence that the matter was being looked into correctly. And I think that Pockit could have responded more quickly in the first instance with regard to this. Importantly, all of this was set against the backdrop of the distress that was caused by the merchant taking the unauthorised transaction in the first place. And whilst this was not the fault of Pockit in the first instance, the issues it caused Mr D would have undoubtedly compounded the distress and inconvenience he was already suffering from. So, when considering all of this, I think our investigator’s recommendation was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Putting things right In order to put things right, Pockit must now pay Mr D £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it has caused him. This is in addition to the £25 it offered, and in addition to the reimbursement of the disputed transaction which it paid him. It should also pay 8% simple interest on the £515 disputed transaction for the time he was deprived of access to the funds. My final decision I uphold this complaint and require POCKIT LIMITED to pay Mr D in line with what I outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Katherine Jones Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --