Not upheld: section 75 claim handling and chargeback decision complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A purchased a car for £9,900 using his Tesco Bank credit card from dealership R and subsequently complained about missing components and alleged misrepresentation regarding service history. Tesco Bank declined to raise a chargeback and rejected a section 75 claim on the basis that the car was purchased for Mr A's daughter rather than for Mr A's own benefit. The ombudsman found that while Tesco Bank incorrectly applied the section 75 criteria, the underlying claim would not have succeeded on the merits because the evidence did not support misrepresentation regarding service history and the quality issues were minor cosmetic defects typical of a four-year-old used car. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr A had a valid contract with R because he was solely involved in the negotiations and purchase, regardless of what he subsequently did with the car. However, on the merits, the ombudsman concluded that Tesco Bank would not have found sufficient evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The service history claim lacked persuasive evidence since the advert mentioned a recent major service and R provided a stamped service entry. The quality issues (missing parcel shelf, broken fuel clip, missing wiper casing) were minor cosmetic defects consistent with a four-year-old used car with 14,000 miles. The tyre damage could not be attributed to R as it was not mentioned in Mr A's initial complaint and the car had recently passed its MOT. Therefore, neither a section 75 claim nor a chargeback would likely have succeeded.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website