Not upheld: s.75 Consumer Credit Act claim handling and chargeback decision complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H purchased a car via credit card in June 2025 and discovered an engine malfunction within 30 days, leading him to reject the car under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The seller agreed to provide a refund but required inspection of the car before processing it. Mr H refused to return the car without receiving the refund first, citing concerns about the seller's financial health and business practices. He raised a s.75 Consumer Credit Act claim with Tesco Bank, which declined it on the basis that the seller had agreed to a refund and had the right to inspect the car upon return. The ombudsman found Tesco Bank's handling was fair and reasonable, determining that the seller's inspection requirement was lawful and that Mr H had alternative recourse if the refund was not provided.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Tesco Bank reasonably declined to raise a chargeback because a full refund had already been offered and a chargeback would have required evidence that goods had been returned or made available for return, which Mr H refused to do. Regarding the s.75 CCA claim, the ombudsman determined that the seller's requirement to inspect the car before issuing a refund was lawful and reasonable, as it was limited to confirming no additional damage had occurred beyond normal wear and tear. The ombudsman rejected Mr H's argument that the inspection constituted an irrelevant test under Explanatory Note 118, finding instead that it was a fair and typical part of the returns process. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr H's concerns about the seller's financial health but noted that Mr H had recourse through a new s.75 CCA claim if the refund was not provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website