Not upheld: chargeback and section 75 Consumer Credit Act liability for alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation in package holiday booking complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W booked a holiday accommodation through package holiday provider X, paying £3,504.95 via Tesco Bank credit card. He believed the room type was adult-only based on website occupancy information stating '3 adults', but found children in a neighbouring room upon arrival. The booking confirmation subsequently stated the room type was for '15 years and over'. Mr W claimed £2,150 refund via chargeback and section 75 CCA claim, arguing breach of contract and misrepresentation. Tesco Bank declined both routes. The ombudsman upheld Tesco Bank's decision, finding that the occupancy information did not constitute a contractual term for adult-only accommodation, the post-purchase confirmation was not a contractual term, and the chargeback had no realistic prospect of success as the service was fully utilised.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr W could make a s.75 CCA claim against Tesco Bank, he had not demonstrated either a breach of contract or misrepresentation. The statement '3 adults' referred to room occupancy capacity, not an adult-only restriction. The post-purchase booking confirmation stating '15 years and over' was general information provided after the contract was formed and did not constitute a contractual term. The hotel's discretion to place children in a neighbouring room of the same type did not breach Mr W's contract. Additionally, a chargeback had no realistic prospect of success because the accommodation was fully utilised. The ombudsman rejected arguments based on the Package Holiday Regulations and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, finding no evidence of deceptive commercial practices or omissions by the provider.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website