Lloyds Bank PLC · DRN-6140146

The complaint Miss L complains Lloyds Bank PLC didn’t do enough to help get a refund for a purchase made on her debit card. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat it at length here. In summary, in July 2025, Miss L ordered some clothes online from a retailer called “F”, paying with her Lloyds debit card. Miss L says the clothes were delivered in three parts; however, she didn’t receive one of these, which contained the majority of her order. Having been unable to resolve the matter with F, Miss L contacted Lloyds for help in getting a refund. Lloyds raised a chargeback, which is a process of asking F for a refund, via rules set by the card scheme, Visa in the circumstances of this case. F defended the chargeback, which is to say it didn’t agree a refund was due. Lloyds reviewed all the information it had been provided and didn’t think it could successfully pursue Miss L’s dispute further. It therefore closed the case in F’s favour and removed a temporary credit for the transaction amount it had applied to Miss L’s account. Lloyds didn’t change its position when Miss L complained, so she referred her concerns to the Financial Ombudsman. Miss L raised concerns that F hadn’t met its obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), so said her dispute should succeed. One of our Investigator’s looked into what happened and didn’t think Lloyds had acted unreasonably. She said Lloyds had considered the chargeback as she’d expect and was reasonable in accepting F’s defence. Our Investigator explained that when considering a chargeback dispute, Lloyds wasn’t required to consider the CRA, rather whether the circumstances of the dispute fell within with the chargeback rules. Miss L disagreed with our Investigator’s opinion. She said she’d never received her full order from F, so Lloyds should have done more to help get a refund. As the matter wasn’t resolved, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I want to assure Miss L and Lloyds that I’ve reviewed everything on file, alongside taking into consideration the relevant rules and regulations applicable to this complaint. And if I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this.

-- 1 of 3 --

I’m looking here at the actions of Lloyds and whether it acted fairly and reasonably in the way it handled Miss L’s request for help in getting her money back. This will take into account the circumstances of the dispute and the card scheme rules, which Lloyds must follow and its own obligations. Miss L paid using her debit card. This meant the only realistic option available to Lloyds to get her money back was to engage with a process known as chargeback. The chargeback process provides a way for Lloyds to ask for a payment its customer made to be refunded. Where applicable, it raises a dispute with the merchant (F) and effectively asks for the payment to be returned to the customer. There are grounds or dispute conditions set by the relevant card scheme, and if these are not met, a chargeback is unlikely to succeed. The process provides an opportunity for F to provide a defence to the chargeback and its own evidence in support of that defence. If F continues to defend the chargeback, Lloyds can either accept that defence, or it can ask the card scheme to decide who gets to keep the money – usually referred to as arbitration. Chargeback is designed to be a simple process to settle disputes. The only matters to be considered are the rules set by the card scheme to which the consumer’s card belongs, along with the facts of the case. It is not designed to settle complex disputes or to consider legal arguments or other protections such as the Consumers Rights Act 2015. The rules are specific, detailed and usually there’s little room for discretion – and they are simply applied to a case as they are. It isn’t a requirement that card issuers such as Lloyds must raise a chargeback every time its asked to. But where the evidence supports a chargeback in line with the scheme rules, I’d expect it to attempt a chargeback in support of its customer. Lloyds raised a chargeback on behalf of Miss L, so my decision focuses on whether Lloyds was reasonable in closing the dispute when it did. Having received Miss L’s dispute, Lloyds raised a chargeback under reason code “Merchandise/Services Not Received”, which I find reasonable based on the circumstances of Miss L’s dispute. F defended the chargeback. It provided photographic evidence of each parcel outside Miss L’s front door, with the door slightly ajar. F said, on this basis it had demonstrated that it had correctly delivered all the parcels to the correct address. Conversely Miss L said she was having building works carried out at her home at the time, meaning her front door was open at times. Miss L says she wasn’t hope when the second package was delivered and no-one else in the house was made aware and it was likely stolen from outside her house, so F didn’t successfully deliver this package. Lloyds wasn’t present when the second package was delivered, so can’t confirm exactly what happened. However, it isn’t necessary for Lloyds to determine this, rather its role is to consider whether the details and evidence of Miss L’s dispute support a successful chargeback. Having received F’s defence, Lloyds was presented with two versions of events. F’s that it had correctly delivered all of Miss L’s order and evidence it said supported this. And Miss L’s that part of her order hadn’t been received and was likely stolen from near her address.

-- 2 of 3 --

Taking everything into consideration against the scheme rules, while I realise this answer will come as a disappointment to Miss L, I find Lloyds was reasonable in its decision not to pursue the chargeback further. I find Lloyds was fair in concluding the defence provided by F met the requirements for a successful defence under the chargeback rules. While I have no reason to doubt what Miss L has told Lloyds or our Service, without further evidence to demonstrate that F didn’t deliver the parcel, I can’t see that the chargeback would have been successful. Therefore, I think Lloyds was reasonable in its decision to close the dispute when it did. Lloyds provided a temporary credit for the transaction amount while the dispute was open. As the chargeback was closed not in Miss L’s favour, I don’t find Lloyds was then wrong to re-debit this amount from her account. In conclusion, which I appreciate this won’t be the answer Miss L is hoping for, for the reasons explained, I’ve found Lloyds gave fair consideration to her chargeback dispute and was reasonable in closing the dispute when it did. I therefore won’t be directing Lloyds to do anything further in relation to this complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss L to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Christopher Convery Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --