Not upheld: refund handling, Section 75 claim assessment, chargeback consideration complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Barclaycard

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained about Barclaycard's handling of his refund request for a £13,000 package holiday where he experienced hotel cleanliness issues, facility problems, health issues during transfer, and was robbed. After initially matching the travel agent's £650 offer, Barclaycard revised its position and credited Mr S's account with approximately £2,000. The ombudsman found that while some hotel services breached the requirement to be carried out with reasonable care and skill, Mr S received full use of the holiday services and did not complain about all elements, particularly the flights which represented a significant portion of costs. The ombudsman concluded the £2,000 refund was a fair price reduction remedy and that Barclaycard had not acted unfairly in rejecting claims for misrepresentation or liability for the robbery and transport-related health issues.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while some elements of the holiday fell short of reasonable care and skill standards, Mr S received full use of the services and did not complain about all elements (particularly flights). The ombudsman concluded that Barclaycard reasonably accepted a partial breach of contract rather than a full one, and that the £2,000 refund (approximately 15% of costs) was a fair price reduction remedy under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The ombudsman was not persuaded that misrepresentation occurred regarding the beach or hotel rating, and found insufficient evidence linking the transport or robbery to breaches of contract by the supplier.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website