Not upheld: chargeback and section 75 claim handling; alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B purchased a television for £4,299 in February 2024, paying £1,000 via a Halifax credit card. The retailer's delivery team unpacked and positioned the television, but it fell from the stand in October 2024 and was damaged. Miss B claimed the television had been improperly installed or positioned, but her attempts to resolve the matter with the retailer, manufacturer, and through arbitration were unsuccessful. When she contacted Halifax in September 2025 (18 months later), Halifax declined to raise a chargeback due to being outside time limits and declined a section 75 claim due to insufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld Halifax's decision, finding that the purchase documentation did not show installation was included in the contract, the order confirmation indicated it was optional, and the retailer consistently denied providing installation services.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Halifax acted fairly in declining the chargeback because Miss B's claim was made outside the relevant scheme time limits (18 months after purchase). Regarding the section 75 claim, the ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence that installation formed part of the contract. The purchase documentation showed delivery as a separate itemised service, the order confirmation indicated installation was optional and required specific selection, and the retailer consistently denied providing installation. While witness evidence confirmed the delivery team handled and positioned the television, this did not establish contractual responsibility for installation. The ombudsman also rejected the argument that the television must have been faulty, noting that eight months of use without issues and the absence of independent technical evidence of an inherent defect made this unlikely. Without evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation, Halifax could not be held liable under section 75.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website