Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T purchased a spa booking via his Capital One credit card for £409, including £10 cancellation cover with 'no quibble' protection. When he could no longer attend, he requested a refund but was offered a voucher instead. He disputed this with Capital One, which declined to raise a chargeback and rejected his Section 75 claim. Mr T complained that the cancellation cover was misrepresented and the no-refund terms lacked prominence. The ombudsman found that the terms and conditions clearly stated cancellation cover does not entitle customers to a refund, were accessible at the point of booking, and the merchant properly fulfilled its contractual obligations by offering a voucher as specified.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Capital One acted fairly in declining the chargeback dispute because the merchant had acted in line with its terms and conditions, and any chargeback claim would have had little prospect of success under Mastercard scheme rules. Regarding the Section 75 claim, the ombudsman determined that the cancellation cover terms were clearly disclosed in the terms and conditions which were made available to Mr T prior to purchase, and therefore no misrepresentation occurred. The merchant fulfilled its contractual obligations by offering a voucher as specified in the terms, so no breach of contract was established.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website