Not upheld: refund claim - misrepresentation of goods/services; Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim; chargeback dispute complaint against MBNA Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs T paid for a campervan rental through booking platform C using her MBNA credit card and alleged the campervan was misrepresented, lacking amenities shown in the listing. She sought a refund from MBNA under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or via chargeback. MBNA rejected the claim, arguing that C acted as an agent for the campervan owner, breaking the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship required for a valid Section 75 claim. The Ombudsman upheld MBNA's decision, finding that the booking platform's terms and conditions clearly established it as an agent for the owner rather than a marketplace or payment facilitator, and that MBNA reasonably declined to pursue a chargeback given the narrow card scheme rules and Mrs T's acceptance of the booking by continuing despite discovering the issues upon arrival.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that no valid debtor-creditor-supplier (DCS) relationship existed because the booking platform C acted as an agent for the campervan owner rather than as a marketplace or payment facilitator. The terms and conditions explicitly stated that C was appointed as the owner's agent to market and promote the rental, and that the owner was responsible for the equipment and listing information. This broke the chain required for a Section 75 CCA claim. Regarding chargeback, while the Ombudsman acknowledged it as a possible route, the card scheme rules are narrow and the evidence suggested Mrs T accepted the changes by continuing with the booking despite discovering the discrepancies upon arrival. Therefore, MBNA did not act unreasonably in declining to pursue a chargeback.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website