Not upheld: disputed transaction and alleged misrepresentation in insurance sale complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Tesco Bank treated him unfairly regarding a credit card transaction where he was allegedly forced to purchase additional car rental insurance (smart cover) from Company B for £106.80, despite already having excess reimbursement insurance from Company A. Tesco Bank declined to raise a chargeback dispute, citing Mr S's consent to the payment, and found no grounds for a Section 75 claim. The ombudsman upheld Tesco Bank's decision, finding that while Mr S faced difficult circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to corroborate misrepresentation, and Mr S had received documentation indicating additional insurance was not compulsory. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Tesco Bank was not unreasonable in declining to raise a chargeback dispute because Mr S had signed a separate contract with Company B and agreed to purchase the insurance, leaving little prospect of a successful dispute under card scheme rules. Regarding Section 75, while the ombudsman acknowledged Mr S's difficult circumstances and empathized with the pressure he felt, there was insufficient corroboration of his version of events beyond his testimony to establish misrepresentation. The ombudsman noted that Mr S had received documentation from Company A stating additional insurance was not compulsory, yet still proceeded with the purchase. No breach of contract was found as Mr S received the insurance policy and its benefits.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website