Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Bank of Scotland plc, trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Ms E complained that Halifax mishandled her chargeback request for £1,600 paid to a book publisher (C) who allegedly failed to deliver the correct versions of two books. Halifax raised the chargeback but decided not to proceed to arbitration after C defended the claim. The ombudsman found Halifax's decision reasonable because Ms E's March 2025 email explicitly granted consent for publication, evidence showed the books were published, and the claim had little prospect of success under Visa's chargeback scheme rules. The ombudsman clarified that chargeback is limited to scheme rules rather than statutory law, and Halifax was not required to investigate full contractual compliance. Halifax's £80 payment for delays was deemed fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Halifax's decision not to proceed to arbitration was reasonable because the chargeback claim had little prospect of success under the scheme rules. Ms E's March 2025 email explicitly granted consent for publication ('I hereby grant my consent for the publication of this first book'), and evidence showed the books were published. While Ms E disputed the quality and correctness of the published versions, this was not sufficiently clear from the evidence available to Halifax at the time to suggest Visa would have favoured her arguments over C's. The ombudsman noted that chargeback is limited to scheme rules rather than statutory law, and Halifax was not required to investigate whether all contractual obligations were fulfilled or to apply relevant consumer law.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website