Not upheld: chargeback handling, disputed transactions, section 75 CCA claim, treatment of vulnerable customer complaint against MBNA Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that MBNA Limited failed to help him recover funds from disputed gambling transactions made on two credit cards in December 2024. He argued MBNA should have raised chargebacks, that the merchants' use of incorrect MCCs to bypass the UK gambling ban constituted misrepresentation under section 75 CCA, and that MBNA failed to treat him fairly as a vulnerable customer with a problem gambling condition. MBNA declined to raise chargebacks and rejected the complaint. The ombudsman found that chargebacks would have had no reasonable prospect of success under card scheme rules (confirmed by VISA and Mastercard), that Mr W failed to demonstrate breach of contract or misrepresentation for a section 75 claim, and that while sympathising with his vulnerability, MBNA did not act unfairly as it verified transactions and does not control merchant MCCs. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that MBNA was not obliged to raise chargebacks that had no reasonable prospect of success under strict card scheme rules. Both VISA and Mastercard confirmed chargebacks based on incorrect MCC would fail at arbitration. Mr W intended to gamble and was able to do so, so chargebacks for services not provided or not as described would also fail. For section 75 CCA claims, Mr W failed to demonstrate breach of contract or misrepresentation. The fact that Mr W may have been attracted to non-UK based merchants specifically to bypass credit card gambling restrictions means the merchant's characteristics were not misrepresented to him. While Mr W is vulnerable, MBNA did not set MCCs, the payment pattern was not concerning, and MBNA did verify the first transaction with Mr W.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website