Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling and refund request complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C purchased a car using his Chase credit card and requested a full refund after the car suffered a failure approximately six months after purchase. Chase declined his Section 75 claim, stating the merchant was entitled to repair the car, which was completed in January 2026 after approximately three months. The ombudsman found that Chase correctly applied consumer protection law, as the repair was completed within a reasonable timeframe and Mr C had no right to reject the car. The ombudsman rejected Mr C's arguments regarding the repair duration, the courtesy car's reduced range, and damage caused during recovery, concluding that Chase treated him fairly in declining the claim and that Section 75 claims cannot be used to claim compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Chase correctly applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which entitles a merchant to one repair within a reasonable timeframe when a fault is reported between 30 days and six months after purchase. The repair was completed in approximately three months, which the ombudsman considered reasonable given the nature of the fault and the festive period. Mr C was provided with a courtesy car to minimize inconvenience, and the difference in battery range (50 miles) was not considered significant given Mr C's low mileage usage. The ombudsman concluded that Mr C did not have a right to reject the car as the repair was completed and there was no evidence the repair had failed. Chase was not liable for the actions of third parties (manufacturer, dealership, garage, recovery agents) and Section 75 claims cannot be used to claim compensation for distress and inconvenience.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website