Not upheld: section 75 claim handling and chargeback consideration for allegedly defective goods complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Miss R purchased weight loss medication from an online merchant using her Tesco Bank credit card, paying approximately £422 for three injectable pens between November 2024 and January 2025. She claimed the pens arrived warm despite the merchant's website stating they would be sent in special refrigerated packaging, and she experienced severe side effects. Miss R contacted Tesco Bank in February 2025 requesting a refund under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, but Tesco Bank declined the claim citing insufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman found that Miss R failed to provide sufficient contemporaneous evidence that the goods did not arrive as described, and that the burden was on her to establish the breach. The ombudsman noted that expert medical evidence would likely be necessary to determine whether temperature excursion affected the medication, which is beyond the scope of the informal FOS forum, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while M's website made representations about refrigerated packaging, Miss R failed to provide sufficient contemporaneous evidence that the goods did not arrive as described. The ombudsman noted that Miss R had used the medication, making a chargeback unlikely to succeed under Mastercard rules requiring goods to be available for return. For a section 75 claim, the burden was on Miss R to provide evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation, which she did not adequately establish. The ombudsman could not assume the goods were faulty based on side effects or poor outcomes, as the medication comes with warnings and disclaimers. The ombudsman also noted that expert medical evidence would likely be necessary to determine whether the medication was affected by temperature excursion, which is beyond the scope of the informal FOS forum. Tesco Bank was therefore reasonable in declining the claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website