Not upheld: chargeback dispute and Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim for non-receipt of goods complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased two perfumes totalling £260 from an online retailer using his Lloyds credit card and claimed he did not receive them. Lloyds raised a chargeback which was defended by the retailer with proof of delivery evidence. The chargeback was declined and the temporary refund reversed. Mr M also made a Section 75 CCA claim which Lloyds rejected. The ombudsman found that the retailer's evidence of delivery was stronger than Mr M's inconsistent testimony and that Mr M had failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence for his claims. The complaint was not upheld, though Lloyds was required to pay £30 compensation already offered for service failures.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test and found that the online retailer's evidence (proof of delivery with GPS location, tracked journey, delivery photo and signature, dispatch records, and evidence of return request) was stronger and more persuasive than Mr M's inconsistent testimony. Mr M's account varied between claiming the parcel was never delivered to his home and later claiming he received a parcel with wrong perfumes. Mr M provided no supporting evidence of the parcel contents as received or evidence of tampering. For the chargeback, Lloyds reasonably applied Mastercard's card scheme rules requiring reasonable supporting evidence. For the Section 75 CCA claim, the £90 perfume did not meet the £100-£30,000 price threshold, and for the £170 perfume, the retailer's evidence of delivery was sufficient to rebut any claim of breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website