17-23 March 2025
Alan lost €1,280 after clicking 'fake link'
Alan had a current account with his credit union and in 2022, he activated a payment service on his mobile phone by clicking on a link. The following day, Alan noticed 13 transactions on his account totalling €1,280 which he said he did not authorise. These transactions had taken place during the previous night and appeared as payments to an entity in another country. Alan said that he did not receive any alerts or notifications from his credit union in relation to these transactions.
Alan contacted the credit union both over the telephone and in-person at his local branch arranged for his card on the account to be cancelled and a replacement issued. The branch staff informed Alan that the amounts in dispute had not left his account but that if they were to, they would be refunded to him.
Alan contacted the credit union again after he discovered the amounts in dispute had left his account. His request for a refund was declined in a final response issued by the credit union.
Alan was not happy with this outcome and made a complaint to the FSPO.
As the complaint was not resolved by mediation, the FSPO began the formal investigation by sending a Summary of Complaint to the credit union., This included copies of all communications between Alan and the credit union which, in his view, supported his argument that he should be refunded the amount of the transactions in dispute.
Following the issue of the Summary of Complaint, the credit union contacted the FSPO to make a settlement proposal and subsequently wrote to Alan explaining that by clicking on the ‘fake' link, he had authorised the payments. However, because the information given to him by the credit union's outsourced customer service provider had raised his hopes of a refund, the credit union offered Alan a full refund of the amount in dispute, which he accepted.