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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A booked a £3,800 package holiday and experienced problems with ants in her hotel room on the first night. The hotel moved her to another room and offered compensation, which she rejected, requesting a partial refund instead. Barclaycard raised a chargeback which T defended, arguing Miss A had used all services. Barclaycard then considered the claim under Section 75 CCA, concluded the hotel had remedied the breach, and offered £480 for loss of enjoyment. When Barclaycard re-debited the temporary refund funds, Miss A's card went over limit and she complained. The ombudsman found Barclaycard had fairly handled both the chargeback and Section 75 claim, and had clearly explained the re-debiting in advance.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that under chargeback scheme rules, Miss A received the services she paid for (flights and seven nights accommodation), so a refund was not appropriate. Regarding the Section 75 CCA claim, the ombudsman determined that while there was a breach of contract (ants in the room), the hotel remedied this by moving Miss A to another room, which constituted repeat performance of services under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The ombudsman found the £480 compensation for loss of enjoyment was fair given the distress caused and the value of the holiday. The re-debiting of temporary funds was fair as Barclaycard had clearly explained this would happen and Miss A indicated understanding during the October 2025 call.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website