Not upheld: disputed transaction / refund claim complaint against Zempler Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

A limited company complained that Zempler Bank Limited refused to refund a £363.66 fee charged by Company U for energy price negotiation services that failed to result in a successful supplier switch. The complainant argued it only agreed under pressure and withdrew consent immediately. The ombudsman found the payment was authorised under the Payment Services Regulations and that pressure does not negate consent. The only potential recovery mechanism would have been a chargeback, but the ombudsman concluded this would not have been likely to succeed because Company U's terms and conditions explicitly permitted the fee where no contract went live, which was the complainant's situation. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the payment was authorised under the Payment Services Regulations because the complainant agreed to a contract with Company U, and pressure does not negate consent. Withdrawal of consent after payment execution is not permitted under PSR regulation 83(2). The only potential avenue for recovery would have been a chargeback, but the ombudsman found this would not have been likely to succeed because the contractual terms explicitly permitted the fee in circumstances where no contract went live, which applied to the complainant's situation. The fee was properly disclosed in the terms and conditions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website