Not upheld: chargeback timeframe compliance and refund eligibility complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O paid £1,000 for a Forex training programme in May 2024 but never received the course materials or services. After company F refused a refund citing the 14-day cancellation period, Mr O contacted Starling in February 2026 requesting assistance. Starling declined, explaining the dispute fell outside the 120-day MasterCard chargeback timeframe. The ombudsman upheld Starling's position, finding that while Mr O had a potentially valid claim under the 'Goods or Services Not Provided' chargeback reason code, he failed to contact Starling within the required 120-day window from the May 2024 settlement date, and even the extended 540-day maximum had passed. The ombudsman confirmed that chargeback timeframes cannot be extended for exceptional circumstances.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with Starling that the most relevant chargeback reason code would have been 'Goods or Services Not Provided'. However, since no specific start date was provided for the Forex training programme, the 120-day timeframe from settlement date applied. Mr O did not contact Starling until February 2026, which was clearly outside this 120-day window (the latest settlement date being 31 May 2024). Even if the service could be considered ongoing, the absolute maximum timeframe of 540 days from settlement date would have required Mr O to contact Starling by November 2025. The ombudsman noted that neither Starling nor the FOS can amend or relax these timeframes, and the chargeback scheme rules contain no provisions for extension due to exceptional circumstances. Starling was not at fault and the only applicable customer protection (chargeback) was unavailable due to the timeframe constraints.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website