Not upheld: chargeback handling and dispute resolution complaint against MBNA Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N purchased blinds via credit card that arrived longer than ordered. He raised a chargeback dispute with MBNA, which initially accepted the claim but then received a defence from the supplier stating extra slats were standard practice. MBNA requested an independent report to clarify the dispute, which Mr N could not obtain. MBNA declined to pursue the chargeback further. The ombudsman found MBNA's handling reasonable given the ambiguous photographic evidence and the supplier's plausible explanation, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that MBNA reasonably requested an independent report because the photographic evidence was ambiguous (full-length photos lacked focus on measurements, close-ups did not show the full blind or tape measure start point) and B had provided a plausible explanation for the length discrepancy through their website statement about extra slats. Given this ambiguity and B's defence, MBNA needed further clarity before pursuing arbitration through chargeback. The ombudsman also considered Section 56 Consumer Credit Act 1974 but found insufficient evidence of a false statement of fact by B.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website