Not upheld: chargeback dispute handling and Section 75 claim assessment complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C made two payments totalling £495 to an offshore gambling company using his Zable credit card in September 2025. After the merchant refused a refund and closed his account, Mr C asked Zable to raise a chargeback dispute and later a Section 75 claim. Zable declined both, citing Mastercard's exclusion of gambling transactions from chargebacks and the lack of a viable Section 75 claim. The ombudsman found Zable acted fairly, as chargeback disputes for gambling are excluded by Mastercard, and Mr C failed to establish a successful Section 75 claim due to lack of evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The £10 compensation already paid for minor delays in handling was deemed reasonable, and no further compensation was awarded.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Zable acted fairly in declining chargeback disputes because Mastercard explicitly excludes gambling transactions from such disputes. Regarding Section 75, the ombudsman determined that even if a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship existed, Mr C had not established a viable claim for breach of contract or misrepresentation. The use of an incorrect MCC was a merchant processing matter, not a misrepresentation by the merchant. Mr C's claim about being unable to withdraw funds lacked corroborating evidence and was raised late in the complaint process. The merchant's use of an offshore structure and non-gambling MCC meant Zable's systems could not have identified the transactions as gambling-related. The minor delays in claim handling were already addressed by the £10 compensation paid.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website