Not upheld: chargeback and section 75 claim handling; alleged breach of contract complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as first direct

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D purchased a garden building from supplier T using his HSBC credit card (£100) and bank transfer for the remainder of the deposit. When T missed the estimated installation date of 10 July 2025, Mr D sought a full refund and raised a dispute with HSBC claiming breach of contract. HSBC declined both a chargeback claim and a section 75 claim, reasoning that T was willing to provide the service and there was no breach of contract. The ombudsman upheld HSBC's decision, finding that the order form contained a clear disclaimer that installation dates were approximate, Mr D did not cancel when notified of the delay, and he was actively engaged in ongoing design discussions with T, making it unreasonable to expect a full refund based on a five-day delay.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the contract did not guarantee a specific delivery date and contained a clear disclaimer that installation dates were approximate, meaning time was not of the essence. The ombudsman concluded that HSBC reasonably determined there was insufficient evidence of breach of contract, particularly given that T was willing and able to deliver within a reasonable timeframe, Mr D did not cancel when initially notified of the delay, and Mr D was actively engaged in design discussions. The ombudsman also found the chargeback claim had no reasonable prospect of success under the scheme rules and that only £100 was charged to the card anyway.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website