Not upheld: chargeback claim mishandling and poor customer service complaint against Bank of Scotland Plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Miss R purchased a sofa for over £700 that was not as described and disputed an assembly fee. Halifax opened a chargeback claim and provided a temporary refund. The chargeback was successfully upheld in Miss R's favour on 19 May 2024, but Halifax failed to communicate this clearly. On 4 June 2024, Miss R was incorrectly told the claim was still ongoing. Miss R then requested cancellation of the chargeback on 5 June 2024, stating the retailer had agreed to resolve it directly, and Halifax cancelled the claim and returned the refund to the payment services provider. The retailer did not receive the money and charged Miss R £325, leading Miss R to pay approximately £350 to resolve the matter. Halifax also credited a duplicate refund in error. The ombudsman found that while Halifax provided poor customer service, it correctly followed the chargeback process and the £210 compensation already paid was adequate, declining to uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Halifax provided poor customer service in certain respects (particularly regarding communication about the chargeback status on 4 June 2024 and the lack of clarity about the successful outcome), it correctly followed the chargeback process rules set by Visa. The temporary refund was appropriately explained as temporary in the emails sent. When Miss R requested cancellation of the chargeback, Halifax correctly returned the funds to the payment services provider as required by the chargeback rules. The ombudsman could not find evidence that Halifax discriminated against Miss R or treated her unfairly as a disabled person, though acknowledged her concerns. The ombudsman determined that the £210 compensation already paid fairly reflected the poor customer service provided, and that Halifax was not responsible for the retailer's failure to receive the refund or the subsequent payment Miss R made to the retailer.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website