Veste

Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against TSB Bank plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6471794 of 2026-07-03T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against TSB Bank plc. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6471794
Decision date2026-07-03T00:00:00+00:00
FirmTSB Bank plc
ProductCurrent account
Claim typeGoods and services under S75
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo additional remedy ordered. The £100 compensation already paid by TSB is deemed sufficient.

Summary

Ms J accidentally booked a holiday for £536 via an online booking company L when a family member pressed the payment button on her phone. After L refused a full refund, Ms J asked TSB to pursue a chargeback. TSB provided temporary credit and attempted the chargeback, but L defended it citing non-refundable booking terms and that the holiday was available. TSB removed the temporary credit without proper notification to Ms J. The ombudsman found the chargeback had no reasonable prospect of success under Visa's rules, as accidental booking is not a valid reason, and that TSB's £100 compensation adequately addressed the service failures in communication and notification.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the transaction was authorised by Ms J despite being accidental, as biometric security was required. Under Visa's chargeback rules, accidental booking is not a valid reason for a successful chargeback. L's non-refundable terms and the fact that the holiday was available and not cancelled meant the chargeback had no reasonable prospect of success. While TSB made errors in its customer service (unhelpful advice and failure to follow up on email delivery failure), these errors would not have changed the outcome. The £100 compensation already paid was deemed fair for the distress and inconvenience caused.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
TSB Bank plc, all decisions3,58926%
Goods and services under S75, all decisions19,91336%
Current account, all decisions48,69119%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website