Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Ms C hired a car from company E in August 2025, paying a £500 security deposit on her Capital One credit card. After an accident, E charged her approximately £2,000 in damage costs and collected £1,150 in instalments from her credit card, which Ms C claimed she had not authorised beyond an initial £500 payment. Ms C asked Capital One to refund the money through chargebacks and a Section 75 CCA claim. Capital One raised chargebacks which E defended by providing the signed rental agreement showing terms that allowed E to recover damage charges from the credit card used for security. The ombudsman found Capital One acted fairly in rejecting both the chargebacks and Section 75 claim, as the evidence showed Ms C had contractually authorised the payments. The ombudsman also found Capital One provided appropriate support to Ms C given her vulnerable circumstances.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the rental agreement terms and conditions Ms C signed explicitly authorised E to recover damage charges from her credit card. The evidence showed Ms C had approved the initial £500 payment and subsequent payments were collected in line with the signed terms. While Capital One could have raised the chargeback under an unauthorised payments reason code, the ombudsman concluded this would not have changed the outcome given the contractual evidence. The ombudsman found no breach of contract or misrepresentation by E to support a Section 75 CCA claim. Capital One was entitled to allow payments exceeding the credit limit and had offered appropriate support including breathing space and collections team assistance.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website