Partially upheld: poor claims handling, failure to consider chargeback and Section 75 protections appropriately complaint against ZILCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained about Z's handling of a claim for a £219 caravan holiday that proved unsuitable for her child's medical needs. She left during her stay and sought a refund via chargeback or Section 75 protections. Z declined to pursue either remedy, stating Miss C had used the services. While the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that a chargeback or Section 75 claim would have succeeded, Z's general handling was poor—it failed to properly listen to Miss C's account, focused on the wrong chargeback reason code, did not consider Section 75 despite her raising it, and caused frustration through repeated requests for information. The complaint was partially upheld with £75 compensation awarded for poor claims handling.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that Z unfairly deprived Miss C of a refund through its decisions on chargeback and Section 75 (due to challenges in proving the supplier would not have successfully defended such claims), Z's general handling of the claim was poor. Z failed to properly listen to Miss C's account, incorrectly stated she had used the facilities when she had clearly stated she left during her stay, focused on the wrong chargeback reason code, failed to consider Section 75 despite Miss C raising it, and caused frustration by asking for repeated information. This poor handling, separate from the outcome, warranted compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website