Not upheld: chargeback dispute handling, service delays, and communication complaints complaint against The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company (RBS)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained to RBS about two disputed transactions with business H (£209 and £50), claiming he should be refunded for both. RBS refunded the £209 transaction but declined the £50 transaction because Mr M raised the dispute on 10 September 2025, outside Visa's 120-day chargeback window (which expired 25 August 2025 from the transaction date or shortly after 28 April 2025 from the delivery date). Mr M also complained about receiving multiple generic templated emails and letters from RBS, which he found harassing, and about RBS's delay in responding to his complaint. RBS paid £75 compensation for the response delay but maintained its position on the chargeback. The ombudsman upheld RBS's position, finding that the 120-day Visa timeframe is mandatory and cannot be extended, that templated communications are standard banking practice, and that the £75 compensation was fair for the service delay.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Visa's 120-day chargeback timeframe is a strict requirement set by the card scheme that neither RBS nor the FOS can amend or relax. Mr M raised his dispute on 10 September 2025, which was outside the 120-day window regardless of whether the timeframe started from the transaction date (27 April 2025) or delivery date (28 April 2025). The use of templated communication is standard banking practice and legitimate, and the emails were sent in response to Mr M's own correspondence. While RBS did delay in responding to the complaint, the £75 compensation already paid was deemed fair and reasonable for this service failure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website