Not upheld: chargeback dispute handling and failure to consider alternative remedies complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Zable failed to raise chargeback disputes after he purchased non-functioning casino vouchers using his credit card in April 2025. Mr L initially focused on the incorrect merchant category code used by the casino, but also mentioned he could not use the vouchers. Zable declined to raise disputes, stating the card scheme did not provide chargeback rights for this scenario. The ombudsman found that while Zable should have considered a goods/services not received dispute, such disputes would have had little prospect of success given the lack of evidence and the fact that Mr L had repeatedly purchased vouchers over two days, undermining his claim. The complaint was not upheld as Mr L would have been in the same position even if Zable had pursued alternative remedies.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Zable should have considered a goods/services not received chargeback dispute in addition to the MCC basis, the ombudsman found that such disputes would have had little prospect of success. The repeated purchase of vouchers over two days undermined Mr L's claim that he was unable to use them, and there was no evidence to support his position. The evidential burden for chargeback disputes is high, and card issuers are not required to pursue disputes with poor prospects of success. Even if Zable had considered a Section 75 claim under the Consumer Credit Act, the same evidential issues would have applied, so Mr L suffered no adverse effects from Zable's actions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website