Not upheld: disputed transaction - alleged misrepresentation of course accreditation status complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs J purchased a £199 online course using her Capital One credit card, expecting it to be Ofqual accredited to enable her to teach at colleges. After discovering it was not Ofqual accredited, she sought a refund from the merchant and, when unsuccessful, raised a dispute with Capital One claiming misrepresentation. Capital One declined both a section 75 claim and chargeback, finding insufficient evidence of misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld Capital One's decision, finding that while Mrs J was told she could teach with the course, the evidence did not demonstrate the merchant stated it was Ofqual accredited or made any false statement of fact that she relied upon. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs J bore the onus of evidencing her claim of misrepresentation. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that the merchant described the course as Ofqual accredited or made any false statement of fact. While Mrs J was told she could teach with the course, she provided no evidence this was untrue. The ombudsman concluded that being told she could teach with the course did not equate to being told it was Ofqual accredited, and therefore Capital One's decision to decline the claim based on insufficient evidence was reasonable. Similarly, under chargeback rules, Capital One could not apply discretion and reasonably concluded the claim lacked reasonable prospect of success.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website