Not upheld: disputed payment / chargeback refusal complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that NatWest unfairly held him liable for a £120 spa payment made under duress at a hotel, where he was threatened by staff and pressured to pay for a service initially represented as free. Mr C requested that NatWest raise a chargeback to recover the funds, but NatWest declined, citing insufficient information to support a successful claim under card scheme rules. The ombudsman found that although Mr C was pressured, he gave explicit consent to the payment by inserting his card and entering his PIN, making it authorised under the Payment Services Regulations 2017. The ombudsman also concluded that NatWest reasonably assessed that a chargeback would not have been successful given the limited evidence available and the nature of the dispute. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which establish that customers are liable for authorised payments. Although Mr C claims he was pressured into making the payment, he did provide explicit consent by inserting his card and entering his PIN. The PSRs do not require that a payment be made freely, only that consent be given. The ombudsman concluded it would not be fair to depart from the PSRs based on the circumstances at the hotel. Regarding the chargeback, the ombudsman found that NatWest reasonably requested information it considered necessary for a successful claim and reasonably concluded that a chargeback would not have been successful given the limited evidence available and the nature of the dispute.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website