Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct

Decision detail

Summary

Ms H complained about First Direct's refusal to progress a chargeback request for a Christmas meal at a restaurant where she alleged delays, incorrect items, lukewarm food, and inedible desserts. The merchant acknowledged delays and apologised but offered only a £50 refund, which Ms H rejected. First Direct declined the chargeback, stating no viable dispute existed under Mastercard rules. The ombudsman found that while the complaint potentially fell within the 'goods or services not as described/defective' chargeback category, First Direct acted reasonably in not pursuing it due to insufficient evidence, evidential difficulties (particularly regarding desserts taken away and opened later), and the fact that service delays during Christmas fell within reasonable expectations. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that while Ms H's complaint potentially fell within the chargeback reason code for 'goods or services not as described/defective', First Direct acted reasonably in not progressing the claim because there was no realistic prospect of success. The ombudsman found that Ms H failed to provide sufficient evidence of a breach of contract or non-compliance with description. Regarding the delays, the ombudsman determined that waiting times during the Christmas period fell within the range of what a reasonable consumer might expect. For the desserts, the ombudsman found evidential difficulties because they were taken away and opened later, making it impossible to prove their condition was due to how they were supplied rather than what happened after. Additionally, since Ms H and her family received and consumed the food and drinks ordered, a full refund claim was highly unlikely to succeed under the card scheme rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website