Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to Tesco Bank about disputed transactions: recurring Opodo Prime subscription charges and Enterprise rental car charges including parking fines. The ombudsman rejected the complaint on multiple grounds: the Opodo payments were reported outside the 13-month PSR deadline and were below the £100 section 75 CCA threshold, while the Enterprise charges were authorized under the rental agreement terms which explicitly allowed debiting for vehicle-related fees. The ombudsman determined that Tesco Bank had not acted wrongly in either case and declined to order any remedy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied statutory time limits and contractual terms to determine that Tesco Bank had not acted wrongly. For the Opodo payments, the complaint was brought outside the 13-month PSR deadline and also outside the 120-day Mastercard chargeback window. The transaction amounts were below the £100 minimum threshold for section 75 CCA claims. For the Enterprise payments, the rental agreement explicitly authorized debiting the account for fees and charges related to vehicle use, and the parking fines were a dispute between the customers and the parking enforcement company, not Tesco's responsibility.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website