Not upheld: scam recovery and chargeback handling complaint against Caxton Payments Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms B complained that Caxton Payments Limited failed to assist her in recovering £981 (£390 + £591) paid to a travel company after she believed she was a victim of a scam. Caxton raised a chargeback dispute on the basis of goods and services not received, but the merchant successfully defended the chargeback by providing evidence of email correspondence showing the booking terms and Ms B's explicit agreement to the payment schedule. The ombudsman found that Caxton appropriately processed the authorized payments, did not need to intervene based on fraud risk, and correctly pursued the chargeback mechanism for recovery. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 framework, noting that Ms B authorized the payments and is presumed liable in the first instance. While firms must protect customers from fraud and financial harm through monitoring and intervention, the payment value and nature did not suggest fraud risk warranting intervention. The chargeback process was the appropriate recovery mechanism, and the merchant legitimately defended the dispute by providing evidence that services were provided as agreed. The issue of ATOL certification is a matter between Ms B and the merchant or ATOL directly, not Caxton's responsibility.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website