Not upheld: chargeback handling and Section 75 claim decline complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC, trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N purchased a flight with Tesco credit card that was delayed due to a security breach and air-traffic control issues (force majeure), causing him to miss his connecting flight. Although Airline A offered an alternative flight arriving 48 hours later, Mr N rejected it and purchased a new flight with another airline for £4,700.89. Mr N requested Tesco pursue a chargeback and Section 75 claim to recover his losses, but Tesco declined both. The ombudsman found Tesco acted fairly because no suitable chargeback reason code applied, Mr N himself stated the chargeback would not help recover consequential losses, and no breach of contract by Airline A occurred as the delay resulted from force majeure and an alternative service was offered. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Tesco acted fairly in not pursuing a chargeback because: (1) Mr N himself stated he was 'not fussed' about the chargeback as it would not recover the consequential loss; (2) no suitable Mastercard reason code would have had reasonable prospect of success; and (3) Airline A had offered an alternative service, even if unacceptable to Mr N. Regarding Section 75, the ombudsman concluded that while Tesco could have been clearer, there was no breach of contract by Airline A because: (1) the delay resulted from force majeure (security breach and air-traffic control issues) outside Airline A's control; (2) Article 10 of the Conditions of Carriage applies only to cancellations and aircraft changes, not missed connections; (3) Article 11 on refunds does not apply as Airline A did not fail to provide carriage but rather offered an alternative; and (4) statutory air passenger rights are not incorporated into the contract as contractual terms, so refusal to pay statutory compensation would be breach of statutory rather than contractual duty, which falls outside Section 75's scope.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website