Not upheld: chargeback handling and dispute resolution complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C purchased a mobile phone for £5,288.98 using his Santander debit card in Turkey, claiming it was defective and not as described. After the retailer failed to provide a replacement, Mr C requested Santander raise a chargeback in January 2025. Santander correctly submitted the chargeback in March 2025 under the appropriate scheme condition. When the merchant defended the claim, Santander sent a letter on 14 April 2025 requesting Mr C's rebuttal within 14 days. Mr C claims he did not receive this letter, but the ombudsman found evidence of its proper sending and could not hold Santander responsible for non-receipt. As Mr C did not respond within the deadline, Santander could not progress the claim to arbitration. The ombudsman found Santander's handling of the chargeback to be fair and reasonable, following all required procedures and scheme rules, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Santander correctly followed Mastercard chargeback scheme rules and procedures. The chargeback was appropriately raised based on Mr C's claim that goods were defective or not as described. Although Santander sent a letter dated 14 April 2025 requesting Mr C's rebuttal of the merchant's defence with a 14-day deadline, Mr C did not respond in time, which prevented progression to arbitration. The ombudsman could not hold Santander responsible for Mr C not receiving the letter, as it was correctly addressed and evidence of its sending was available. The merchant's defence was not unreasonable given the transaction details, and Santander had no basis to suspect fraud. The chargeback process is not suited to fraud allegations as it lacks the power to compel witnesses and marshal sworn evidence like a court can. Without Mr C's rebuttal and expert evidence supporting the defect claim, Santander had no obligation to proceed to arbitration, and there was no reasonable prospect of success.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website