Not upheld: chargeback and Section 75 claim handling; dispute over damages remedy complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H paid a landscape gardener £7,314 (£3,452 on his Halifax credit card and £3,862 via bank transfer) for garden work and slabs. The gardener only partially completed the work and did not supply the slabs. Halifax initially pursued a chargeback, which the gardener defended, and later investigated a Section 75 claim. Halifax offered £5,022 in settlement, but Mr H sought an additional £2,461 for the higher cost of completing the remaining work. The ombudsman found Halifax's handling fair, as the chargeback timescales justified the initial approach and the Section 75 settlement appropriately restored Mr H to his original position without providing a windfall, since different suppliers charge different prices for the same work.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found Halifax's chargeback handling was fair given strict card scheme timescales, and that the report would not have changed the outcome since the completed work cost more than the credit card amount. On Section 75, the ombudsman applied the principle that damages should restore the claimant to the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, not put them in a better position. Since different suppliers charge different prices for the same work, asking Halifax to pay the higher completion costs Mr H actually incurred would place him in a better position than originally contracted. The £5,022 offer fairly compensates the overpayment, report cost, and removal expenses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website