Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Bank of Scotland Plc (trading as Halifax)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P complained that Halifax unfairly declined her chargeback claim and rejected a Section 75 CCA claim after she returned a £1,650 designer handbag purchased using her credit card. The retailer R claimed the returned package contained a counterfeit handbag and provided a photograph as evidence, stating the package showed no signs of tampering. Halifax closed the chargeback after determining there was little prospect of success and rejected the Section 75 claim because the invoice and communications were addressed to Mrs P's husband, indicating he was the contracting party, not Mrs P. The ombudsman found Halifax acted fairly in both decisions, as the evidence supported R's position and there was no valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for the Section 75 claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Halifax correctly determined there was no valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship because the evidence showed the contracting party was Mrs P's husband, not Mrs P, despite the payment being made using her credit card. On the chargeback claim, the ombudsman acknowledged the evidence was incomplete and inconclusive but found Halifax acted fairly in concluding there was little prospect of success based on R's persuasive evidence (the photograph and statement about no tampering) showing the returned handbag was not manufactured by them. The ombudsman noted that while it was possible the courier or retailer tampered with the package, such serious allegations would be difficult to prove in the informal ombudsman forum and Halifax faced similar evidential challenges.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website