Not upheld: chargeback dispute handling and customer service complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6348537 of 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. chargeback dispute handling and customer service complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6348537 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | chargeback dispute handling and customer service |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. No refund or compensation was directed. |
Summary
Ms F complained about Chase's handling of a dispute claim regarding cosmetic treatments received abroad that allegedly caused nerve damage and were performed by an unqualified individual rather than a qualified dermatologist as promised. Chase did not raise a chargeback, and Ms F escalated her complaint to the FOS. The ombudsman found that while Chase could arguably have attempted a chargeback under Mastercard rules for services not as described, the evidence provided lacked persuasive expert documentation confirming the practitioner was unqualified or that the treatment was defective. The ombudsman noted that Ms F's own testimony, photos, and some healthcare professional documentation were insufficient without expert confirmation of improper qualifications or poor treatment standards. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman acknowledged that Chase could arguably have attempted a chargeback under the Mastercard rule for 'Goods or Services Were Either Not as Described or Defective'. However, the ombudsman found that the evidence provided lacked definitive expert statements confirming either a lack of proper qualification or poor standard of treatment. While Ms F provided her own testimony, circumstantial evidence, and photos, the chargeback scheme requires persuasive expert evidence to succeed in complex cases involving cosmetic treatments. The ombudsman noted that side effects are not uncommon in cosmetic treatments, and Ms F's evidence of symptoms alone does not prove the service was defective or performed by unqualified persons. The ombudsman also found that Ms F's claim regarding omission of risk information falls outside the scope of the relevant chargeback rule, which concerns accuracy of description rather than omitted information.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase, all decisions | 35 | 16% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website