Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A purchased items twice from an online retailer after the first delivery arrived in damaged packaging. He raised a chargeback claim with Tesco Bank in February 2025, but the bank declined to proceed due to insufficient evidence of damage to the items themselves. Mr A later returned the items in March 2025 (outside the 30-day returns window) and requested a chargeback for non-receipt of refund, which Tesco Bank again declined without evidence of the retailer's agreement to refund. The ombudsman found Tesco Bank acted fairly in both decisions, as there was no clear evidence of item damage and Mr A had returned goods outside the contractual returns period, meaning the retailer was not in breach of contract.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Tesco Bank reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence of damage to the items themselves (only packaging damage was clearly shown) to support a chargeback claim under the 'Goods or Services Were Either Not as Described or Defective' dispute condition. For the later chargeback request based on non-receipt of refund, the bank reasonably required evidence that the retailer had agreed to refund, which was not provided. Under Section 75, no breach of contract or misrepresentation was established because: (1) there was no persuasive evidence the goods were not of satisfactory quality when delivered; (2) Mr A returned items outside the 30-day returns window specified in the contract, meaning the retailer was not in breach by refusing refund; and (3) there was no evidence the retailer agreed to collect items. The missing memory card was resolved by receipt of a replacement.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website