Partially upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against National Westminster Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H purchased a computer from merchant M for £1,369 via his NatWest credit card, claiming it had inferior specifications to what was described at point of sale. M offered a refund upon return of the goods but Mr H faced difficulties returning them and did not accept the offer. NatWest declined to raise a chargeback or Section 75 CCA claim, citing insufficient evidence of misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld NatWest's decision on the merits, finding Mr H had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to support his claims. However, the complaint was partially upheld because NatWest provided poor customer service, failed to make adequate reasonable adjustments for Mr H's disclosed disabilities (which required phone communication), and delayed issuing a final response. NatWest was ordered to pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found NatWest acted fairly in declining the chargeback because Mr H failed to provide sufficient evidence (such as screenshots, photos, or product specifications) to demonstrate the computer was not as described. For the 'promised refund not received' chargeback reason, while Mr H faced genuine difficulties in returning the goods, NatWest reasonably asked for supporting evidence and was not obliged to specify exhaustively what evidence might succeed. Although Mr H's disability meant he preferred phone communication, the ombudsman concluded it was not NatWest's role to provide an exhaustive list of required evidence, and even call recordings would not have guaranteed success. However, NatWest's customer service was poor: communications were unclear about the chargeback and S75 CCA processes, calls were not made within promised timeframes, and the final response was delayed. The ombudsman acknowledged that only a County Court has authority to formally decide if reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act were breached.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website