Not upheld: chargeback handling and dispute resolution complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (trading as Ulster Bank)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased six vacuum cleaners for £3,439.94 from manufacturer D using his Ulster Bank debit card in July 2025. Upon delivery, Mr M claims the boxes were empty, but D defended the chargeback with courier photographic evidence showing no obvious tampering. Ulster Bank requested further information from Mr M but closed the chargeback when they did not receive a response within the deadline. Mr M complained that he had not received Ulster Bank's email about D's defence. The ombudsman found that Ulster Bank processed the chargeback correctly according to Mastercard scheme rules and that the available evidence did not provide a reasonable chance of success, making it reasonable for Ulster Bank to close the chargeback. The ombudsman upheld Ulster Bank's £50 compensation for a separate service failure (missed call) but rejected Mr M's complaint about the chargeback handling.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the evidence was inconclusive about what happened to the goods, Ulster Bank acted reasonably in requesting further information from Mr M before proceeding with the chargeback. The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard and concluded that the available evidence did not provide a reasonable chance of success with Mastercard. The courier's photograph showing no obvious tampering, combined with D's explanation that empty boxes would have been obvious during delivery, meant Ulster Bank was justified in wanting more certainty. The ombudsman could not definitively prove the email was or was not sent, but noted Mr M had successfully received other emails from Ulster Bank at that address. The ombudsman concluded Ulster Bank processed the chargeback correctly according to scheme rules and in a timely manner.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website