Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling and chargeback decision complaint against NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased return flights for £2,128 using his NatWest credit card, but the return date was changed from 19 August 2025 to 16 August 2025 without his knowledge, with the travel agency offering 18 August 2025 as an alternative. Mr M accepted the alternative flight as he was told the original date was fully booked, but his wife missed a scheduled dental appointment overseas as a result. Mr M claimed under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act and requested a chargeback, but NatWest declined both. The Ombudsman upheld NatWest's decision, finding that Mr M received return flights and incurred no additional costs, and that Section 75 liability does not extend to inconvenience or third-party losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that NatWest acted fairly because: (1) under Section 75, Mr M was provided with return flights albeit on altered dates, and there was no evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier; (2) Mr M did not incur additional costs or lose paid extras as a result of the flight change; (3) Section 75 liability does not extend to inconvenience or losses from altered travel plans; (4) losses suffered by Mr M's wife are not NatWest's responsibility; (5) a chargeback would not have been successful as the airline did provide return flights and the chargeback process does not cover inconvenience or third-party losses; and (6) NatWest fairly considered what Mr M might have been entitled to under the chargeback scheme.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website