Our investigation

Banks must assess whether a chargeback request falls within the grounds set out in the card provider’s rules. If it does, they should initiate a chargeback request with the card provider and explain the process clearly to the customer. The bank initially treated the matter as fraud before referring it to the chargebacks team. A team member advised Isaac to contact the hotel and booking site, but Isaac was unable to reach either. Later, the bank asked Isaac for supporting documents, which he supplied the same day, but the bank declined to proceed with a chargeback, saying the documentation showed he had confirmed the booking of two rooms in US dollars. Isaac said the details in the booking confirmation were different to those shown in the terms of sale and appeared only after clicking “confirm.” The bank stood by its decision not to proceed with a chargeback request.

We found the bank failed to consider the terms Isaac saw before confirming the booking, instead concentrating only on what showed after clicking the confirm button. It did not ask for evidence of those initial terms, despite Isaac’s consistent explanation. The bank also overlooked a valid chargeback ground under the card’s misrepresentation rules. These state that a customer can seek a chargeback if the merchant has misrepresented the terms of sale. Isaac’s experience was consistent with other complaints about the same merchant. The bank also failed to clearly explain the chargeback process to Isaac.

Outcome

The bank and Isaac agreed with our recommendation that the bank pay him $581.85. This covered the $481.85 he had been charged, along with $100 for the inconvenience he had suffered.