Not upheld: failure to prevent payments and failure to recover payments through chargebacks complaint against Skrill Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Skrill Limited failed to offer appropriate support when he was experiencing financial harm due to compulsive gambling spending and did not take appropriate action when he reported payments to online casinos. Mr D requested refunds claiming the casinos were operating illegally. Skrill investigated and declined to refund the payments or pursue chargebacks, stating the payments were made in accordance with Mr D's instructions and did not qualify for chargeback rights. The ombudsman found that even if Skrill had intervened, Mr D would likely have continued making payments based on his responses to similar interventions from another bank, and that the payments did not qualify for chargebacks under scheme rules as they were processed as point-of-sale withdrawals. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Skrill should monitor accounts for vulnerability and unusual activity, even if it had intervened with questions similar to the other bank, Mr D would likely have given similar responses denying gambling problems and would have continued making payments. Additionally, the payments did not qualify for chargeback rights under scheme rules because they appeared in Mr D's merchant accounts and were processed as point-of-sale withdrawals rather than purchases. Therefore, Skrill acted reasonably in not preventing the payments or attempting chargebacks.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website