Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as M&S Bank
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6465427 of 2026-07-01T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as M&S Bank. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6465427 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as M&S Bank |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | M&S Bank must: (1) Pay Mr S £2,250 (the full amount paid for the counterfeit watch); (2) Rework his account to remove any interest and charges associated with this amount from when M&S declined the section 75 claim; (3) Pay 8% simple interest on any credit balance that results. |
Summary
Mr S purchased a counterfeit watch for £2,250 via online marketplace E using his M&S credit card, believing it to be genuine based on the product description and E's authenticity guarantee. When he discovered the watch was counterfeit in January 2025, he sought a refund from M&S under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, but M&S declined on the basis that no Debtor-Creditor-Supplier (DCS) agreement existed. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that a valid DCS agreement was in place because credit card payment schemes create arrangements between all participants (issuer, marketplace, seller, and cardholder). The ombudsman also found that both misrepresentation and breach of contract occurred: misrepresentation through the false description and authenticity guarantee, and breach of contract because the watch was either not properly authenticated or the authenticity guarantee was breached. M&S was ordered to refund £2,250 plus interest and remove associated charges.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that a valid DCS agreement existed between M&S, the seller, E, and Mr S because: (1) the card scheme rules create arrangements between all participants; (2) E must have pre-existing arrangements with payment providers to offer credit card payments; (3) sellers on E are aware of available payment options before sales occur; and (4) processing credit card payments via online marketplaces is widespread commercial practice accommodated by card schemes. The ombudsman applied the broad interpretation of 'arrangements' from Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB, rejecting M&S's argument that the credit agreement predated online marketplace evolution. On the merits, misrepresentation occurred because the watch description, price, and authenticity guarantee led Mr S to believe it was genuine, but it was counterfeit. Breach of contract also occurred because either the watch was not properly authenticated (timeline suggests it was not sent to authenticator) or the authenticity guarantee was breached by delivering a counterfeit item.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as M&S Bank, all decisions | 3 | 33% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,913 | 36% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 26,117 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website