Not upheld: chargeback handling / dispute management complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F purchased a magnum of wine from an overseas auction house for CHF 6,592.50, expecting an authentic 1947 label attached to the bottle. Upon receipt, the label was detached and appeared to be a modern reprint. Mr F raised a chargeback dispute with Revolut, but Revolut declined to continue after the merchant defended the claim, citing that the listing description disclosed the label was detached and the merchant's terms excluded post-sale claims. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that the condition was properly disclosed in the listing prior to purchase and that Mastercard chargeback rules do not permit disputes when condition is properly disclosed at time of sale.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that Revolut acted fairly in deciding not to continue with the chargeback because: (1) the condition of the lot (detached label) was disclosed in the listing description as 'étiquette décollée' prior to purchase; (2) the merchant's terms of sale stated goods were sold 'as seen' and no claims were accepted after the auction; (3) Mastercard chargeback rules do not permit the 'Goods or Services Not as Described' reason code when proper disclosure of condition is made at time of sale; (4) Revolut was not required to allow Mr F to rebut the merchant's evidence or to consider statutory law, as chargebacks are governed solely by card scheme rules; (5) even if the dispute had proceeded to arbitration, the merchant's arguments would likely have prevailed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website