Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against MBNA Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A paid approximately £6,500 to a merchant in 2021 for fund recovery services under a 12-month contract with no guarantee of success. After the merchant ceased responding in 2024 and Mr A received no recovered funds, he requested a refund from MBNA via a Section 75 claim in July 2025. MBNA declined the claim, finding no breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld MBNA's decision, finding that while services were provided, the contract's lack of success guarantee and the merchant's continued work beyond the contractual period did not constitute a breach. The ombudsman also found MBNA's handling of the claim was fair and timely, and that a chargeback was not available due to the 540-day time limit having expired.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the necessary criteria for a Section 75 claim were met, Mr A failed to demonstrate a breach of contract or misrepresentation. The contract explicitly stated there was no guarantee of success, services were provided by the merchant, and the merchant's continuation of work beyond the 12-month period did not constitute a breach. The ombudsman found MBNA's request for more persuasive evidence of breach or misrepresentation to be reasonable. The ombudsman also found MBNA did not act unfairly in declining to consider a chargeback (outside the 540-day time limit) or in excluding data breach concerns from the Section 75 claim scope. The handling timeframe was not unreasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website