The bank confirmed the payment itself had been processed correctly. It said the incorrect details were supplementary merchant information generated through third-party data and matching processes. It also pointed out the warning that supplementary merchant information might not always be accurate or complete. The bank apologised, undertook to review the incorrect match and offered Wade compensation for the inconvenience caused. However, Wade then uncovered more incorrect merchant details on other transactions and expressed concern about the reliability of the transaction information given to customers.

Our investigation

We examined the transaction information and saw that the supplementary information appeared in the middle of the verified transaction details. Customers might not readily appreciate that the two types of information came from different sources and had different levels of reliability. We agreed that incorrect information about transactions might cause customers to suspect fraud when a transaction was, in fact, legitimate.

We recommended the bank consider displaying the supplementary merchant information separately from verified transaction details and clearly link accuracy warnings to that information. We also suggested the bank provide clearer information about how the supplementary merchant information feature worked, and consider giving customers the ability to turn off the feature.

Outcome

The complaint was resolved after the bank agreed to review how supplementary merchant information is displayed.