New Wave Capital Limited · DRN-6202569

The complaint D, a company, complains that New Wave Capital Limited, trading as Capital on Tap, won’t refund disputed transactions made from their account. Mr P, a director, complaints on their behalf. What happened On 5 October 2025 several payments were carried out via D’s card to a bar in Poland. In total the payments amounted to just over £10,800. Mr P provided slightly different explanations of what happened with his phone and the disputed payments. Initially he told Capital on Tap that he’d left his phone in a bar and then on regaining it he identified the disputed payments, and he didn’t carry out any payments in that bar – in fact the last payment he’d made was two days earlier. However, he later told Capital on Tap – and our service – that he thinks he was overcharged for drinks. He raised a claim with Capital on Tap but they declined it advising that the payments had been approved via Mr P’s phone and biometrics. Mr P complained but Capital on Tap maintained they’d acted fairly. Mr P brought his complaint to our service. One of our Investigators looked into his complaint but didn’t think they’d acted unfairly. Overall they thought that Mr P most likely approved the payments, they thought raising a chargeback for goods not received wouldn’t have been successful and they didn’t think it should have triggered Capital on Tap’s fraud detection system. Mr P didn’t accept our Investigator’s outcome – in response he argued the payments should have been stopped, and he doesn’t understand why Capital on Tap didn’t reach out to the bar for receipts. As Mr P 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 disputed transactions were authenticated via a digital wallet and Mr P’s biometrics but the relevant legislation (the PSRs 2017) on its own it’s not enough to conclude Mr P authorised them. They also need to show on balance he consented to the payments. Mr P’s been inconsistent in the explanations he’s provided to our service. Our accept that it’s possible Mr P’s memory of the night wasn’t clear based on his level of alcohol consumption, however it does impact on the reliability of his story. Mr P has confirmed when speaking with our Investigator that he was in the bar where the payments were taken, and he did attempt

-- 1 of 2 --

to carry out transactions at the time. So, he now believes that it’s likely that when buying drinks in the bar he was overcharged rather the payments being carried out without his knowledge. I accept that this is the most likely explanation – I don’t find it plausible that a third-party fraudster could have gained access to Mr P’s phone without his knowledge and carried out payments over several hours using his digital wallet. I say this as the payments were carried out using Mr P’s fingerprint and his phone was returned to him at the end of the night, which I find surprising. I appreciate this will disappoint Mr P but not being aware of the amount of money your paying for an item doesn’t necessarily mean you haven’t consented. By carrying out the form and procedure – in this case using his digital wallet and fingerprint – Mr P consented to the payments even though he wasn’t aware of their value. In a case of overcharging Mr P might be eligible to raise a chargeback for being overcharged or goods not received, however when Mr P first contacted Capital on Tap he told them he hadn’t attempted any payments in the bar and therefore Capital on Tap would only be able to raise a fraud chargeback. This wouldn’t have any prospect of success as the payments were approved by Mr P’s fingerprint. Even if Mr P had been honest with Capital on Tap when first speaking with them and a different sort of chargeback was raised as Mr P doesn’t have any receipts of the payments it’s highly unlikely any chargeback would have been successful. I appreciate Mr P asked why Capital on Tap didn’t request receipts from the bar but there’s no expectation that this would happen – instead Capital on Tap’s only option here is to raise a chargeback with the merchant’s bank, but for the reasons I’ve explained I wouldn’t have expected them to do this as there was no prospect of success. Capital on Tap argue that they blocked the third attempted payment and asked Mr P to approve it his mobile app. I’ve not seen evidence of this, however even if concluded this didn’t happen I can’t fairly say that any contact from Capital on Tap to Mr P would have led to him not making further payments. I say this for two reasons firstly Mr P’s self-reported level of intoxication and secondly his inconsistent accounts of what happened that night. For this reason I can’t safely conclude Mr P would have responded to any messages by saying he didn’t authorise the payments. I realise this will disappoint Mr P but for the reasons I’ve outlined above I think it’s fair to hold D liable, and I won’t be asking them to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask D to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Jeff Burch Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --