Partially upheld: refusal to provide full refund for gambling losses; poor customer service to vulnerable customer complaint against Zilch Technology Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs D complained to Zilch after losing £579.39 to an online casino (Casino L) through five payments made in December 2025, claiming the casino failed to credit her account and operated fraudulently. Zilch refunded only two payments, stating the others did not meet chargeback criteria. Mrs D also complained about poor service, including delays and unclear communications. The ombudsman found no evidence of fraud by Casino L and upheld Zilch's decision not to refund the first three payments, but partially upheld the complaint by finding Zilch provided poor service to a vulnerable customer and awarded £275 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

On Strand 1, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that Casino L intended to defraud Mrs D or was operating a scam, despite the questionable practices. The payments were relatively low amounts that would not have appeared unusual to Zilch, and Zilch would not have been able to identify them as gambling transactions. Chargeback claims would not have succeeded as there was insufficient evidence. Zilch's communications about chargebacks caused confusion but did not create an obligation to refund. On Strand 2, the ombudsman found Zilch breached the Consumer Duty by failing to provide adequate service to a vulnerable customer, including delays, lack of clarity, and requiring repeated information despite Mrs D's stated vulnerabilities.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website