Not upheld: section 75 claim handling and chargeback processing complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Lloyds unfairly handled his section 75 claim and chargeback request for £875 paid to a medical treatment provider (S) for a skin condition treatment. Mr M claimed S misrepresented the treatment's effectiveness and pressured him into the purchase, and that he did not receive adequate time to make an informed decision. Lloyds declined both the section 75 claim and chargeback, citing S's no refund policy and lack of sufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman found that while Mr M provided a witness statement from his sister and a letter from an independent doctor, these did not constitute sufficient evidence of a breach of the implied term of reasonable care and skill, and the signed consent form outlining risks and uncertainties undermined the misrepresentation claim. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Lloyds faced evidential challenges with conflicting accounts from Mr M and S. For the breach of contract claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Mr M failed to provide sufficient independent expert evidence that the service wasn't carried out with reasonable care and skill. The consent form Mr M signed outlined risks and uncertainties, and indicated he had time to make an informed decision, which undermined claims of misrepresentation. The ombudsman concluded that Lloyds would have wanted more certainty before accepting either a misrepresentation or breach of contract claim, and therefore its handling was fair. The chargeback was appropriately submitted but S's defence based on the no refund policy and signed consent form meant there was insufficient evidence to pursue it further.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website