Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B booked a rental vehicle, paying a £77 booking fee via his Monzo debit card. At the rental desk, he was asked for a 1,400 Euro security deposit, which was significantly higher than expected, and he chose not to proceed with the rental. The merchant refused to refund the booking fee. Mr B raised a chargeback claim with Monzo, arguing it should be considered under the 'services not provided' category. Monzo rejected the claim based on Mastercard's scheme rules. The Ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding that the merchant had provided the booking service and was correctly enforcing its contractual terms, which Mr B had agreed to at booking by selecting the non-refundable 'basic cover' option. The chargeback claim had no reasonable prospect of success under any applicable scheme rule.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that Monzo correctly applied Mastercard's chargeback scheme rules. The claim could not succeed under 'services not provided' because the merchant did provide a booking service. It could not succeed under 'services not as described' because the merchant's terms and conditions, which Mr B agreed to, clearly set out the security deposit requirements and non-refundable booking fee. Mr B's choices at booking (selecting basic cover and declining insurance) meant the full security deposit would be payable. The merchant was enforcing its contractual terms, not breaching them. Therefore, the chargeback claim had no reasonable prospect of success under any applicable scheme rule.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website