Not upheld: chargeback claim handling / refund dispute complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained that Starling Bank Limited unfairly handled his refund claim after he was unable to attend a float therapy session he had booked and paid for with his Starling debit card. The supplier had a 24-hour cancellation policy and Mr T cancelled less than two hours before the appointment due to health difficulties. The ombudsman examined whether Starling should have pursued a chargeback claim under Mastercard scheme rules. Finding that neither applicable chargeback reason code ('Goods or Services Not Provided' or 'Credit Not Processed') was appropriate to Mr T's circumstances, the ombudsman concluded Starling acted fairly in declining the claim. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman assessed whether Starling should have pursued a chargeback claim under Mastercard scheme rules. Two potential reason codes were considered: 'Goods or Services Not Provided' and 'Credit Not Processed'. The first was rejected because the service was available and ready to be provided; Mr T simply could not attend due to personal circumstances. The second was rejected because G did not promise a refund and properly communicated their 24-hour cancellation policy. The ombudsman concluded that neither reason code would have a reasonable prospect of success under the scheme rules, and therefore Starling acted fairly in declining to pursue the chargeback.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website