Not upheld: disputed transaction / chargeback handling complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Aqua

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S disputed a credit card payment for a taxi journey, claiming he had already paid in cash and was forced to make the card payment. Aqua raised a chargeback on his behalf, but the merchant defended it with evidence showing the payment was authorised and the service was provided. Mr S provided mobile application evidence showing a booking at a lower price, but with a different driver and vehicle registration. The ombudsman found that since Mr S admittedly received the taxi service, and the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the chargeback would succeed, Aqua acted fairly in not pursuing the claim further. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while it was plausible Mr S was tricked by the taxi driver, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate Aqua acted incorrectly. The key issue was that Mr S admittedly received the taxi service he paid for. Without the taxi driver's testimony and given the discrepancies in the mobile application evidence (different driver and vehicle registration), the chargeback claim would not have had a reasonable chance of success. Therefore, Aqua acted fairly in not pursuing the claim further through the chargeback scheme.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website