Not upheld: chargeback handling and Section 75 claim decline complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O booked a package holiday including flights and car hire with supplier B using his NatWest credit card. At the car hire desk in Italy, he was told he needed two credit cards in his name but only had one Mastercard, forcing him to arrange alternative car hire at additional cost. Mr O initiated a chargeback and Section 75 claim with NatWest, but received no updates for several months. NatWest declined both claims, citing incorrect UK terms and conditions and arguing no DCS relationship existed. The ombudsman found NatWest's reasoning flawed but upheld their decision, as the chargeback would likely have been defended based on legitimate Italy-specific terms requiring two credit cards, and no breach of contract or misrepresentation occurred. NatWest's £250 compensation for poor communication was deemed appropriate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although NatWest's stated reasons for not raising a chargeback were incorrect (they cited UK terms when Italy terms were applicable), the ombudsman found that a chargeback would likely have been defended successfully by B or the car rental company based on the Italy-specific terms requiring two credit cards in the customer's name. The ombudsman agreed a DCS relationship existed for the package holiday but found no breach of contract or material misrepresentation by B, as B had sent a voucher with relevant details and the car hire requirement was set out in the supplier's terms and conditions. The ombudsman considered that B acted as an agent for the car rental company and the car rental company's terms and conditions would have applied.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website