Not upheld: chargeback handling and Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim assessment complaint against MARKS AND SPENCER FINANCIAL SERVICES PLC trading as M&S Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T paid a builder approximately £70,000 via M&S Bank credit card for extension and garage work between January and May 2025. Dissatisfied with the quality, he disputed seven transactions totalling over £30,000 in August 2025, seeking refunds via chargeback and Section 75 CCA claims. M&S Bank declined most chargebacks citing the 120-day timeframe had passed, refunded one payment (£3,670) as a gesture, and rejected the S75 CCA claim on the basis that the total contract value exceeded the £30,000 statutory limit. The ombudsman found M&S Bank's handling could have been better but upheld its ultimate decisions, as chargebacks would likely have failed due to insufficient evidence and the disputed £4,555 was reasonably considered an amendment to the original contract rather than a separate contract.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while M&S Bank could have handled the chargeback process better and should have raised the chargeback for the £3,670 payment, this would likely not have resulted in a successful outcome given the lack of written contract, unclear service specifications, and absence of detailed evidence of defects for each transaction. Regarding the S75 CCA claim, the ombudsman concluded the £4,555 was more likely an amendment to the original £70,000 contract rather than a separate contract, as it involved amending the original architectural plans. Therefore, the total contract value exceeded the £30,000 S75 CCA limit, making M&S Bank's rejection of the claim reasonable. The £300 compensation already paid was deemed fair reflection of the customer service failures.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website