Not upheld: chargeback handling and refund claim complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6288854 of 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00. chargeback handling and refund claim complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6288854 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | chargeback handling and refund claim |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint is not upheld and no action is required from Chase. |
Summary
Mr C purchased defective eyeglasses from merchant V for £240 using his Chase debit card and sought a refund through the chargeback process. Chase attempted two chargebacks, both of which were declined by V, who cited their return policy excluding returns from outside the EU and stating that individually manufactured items are non-returnable. Mr C disputed these defences, providing archived screenshots of V's policy from April 2025 that showed a 25% service fee for returns outside the EU rather than an outright exclusion. The ombudsman found that Chase acted fairly in not pursuing the chargeback to arbitration because the evidence regarding V's return policy at the time of purchase was inconclusive and contradictory, the evidence of defects was insufficient, and even if successful, the chargeback would have been subject to a 25% reduction. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman considered whether Chase should have pursued the chargeback to arbitration with Mastercard. The key issue was the uncertainty surrounding V's return policy at the time of purchase. Mr C provided evidence from April 2025 showing a 25% service fee for returns outside the EU, but V's policy as of 8 July 2025 explicitly excluded such returns. The ombudsman found that Chase would have had understandable concerns about relying on evidence from two months before the transaction, especially when it contradicted terms V could evidence were in effect shortly after the sale. Additionally, the evidence that the eyeglasses were defective was inconclusive, and even if a chargeback succeeded, it would likely have been subject to the 25% reduction mentioned in the return policy. The ombudsman concluded that it was not clear a chargeback would have succeeded, and Chase acted reasonably in not pursuing it further.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase, all decisions | 34 | 16% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website