Not upheld: Complaints handling failures complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S disputed a £64 debit card payment made to an online merchant who included unwanted items and refused to cancel the order. He contacted Chase on 2 May 2025 to raise a chargeback, but the merchant provided a refund on 7 May 2025 before Chase could process it. Mr S complained about Chase's failure to provide a provisional refund, lack of updates (Chase did not inform him of the merchant's refund until 1 June 2025), generic communication, and poor handling of his Subject Access Request. Chase acknowledged these failings and offered £125 compensation, which Mr S rejected and escalated to the FOS. The ombudsman upheld Chase's £125 compensation as fair and reasonable, acknowledging the service failures but finding the financial impact minimal and the compensation proportionate to the time, trouble, and upset caused.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged multiple failings by Chase: failure to provide a provisional refund, delayed communication about the merchant's refund, generic chat responses, and unnecessary information requests during SAR processing. However, the ombudsman determined that the chargeback outcome was reasonable since the merchant's refund eliminated any prospect of a successful chargeback. The ombudsman noted that while Chase's service was deficient, the actual financial impact on Mr S was minimal as he ultimately received his full refund. The ombudsman declined to comment on Chase's use of AI or the contents of the SAR, as these fall outside FOS jurisdiction. Considering the acknowledged failings, the limited financial impact, and the time and frustration caused, the ombudsman concluded that £125 was fair compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website