Lloyds Bank Plc · DRN-6122840

The complaint Mr S’s complaint is about how Lloyds Bank Plc (Lloyds) handled a refund claim he made. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. The facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my decision. 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’ve read and considered the evidence submitted by the parties but won’t comment on it all – only the matters I consider to be central to this complaint. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy but reflects my role in resolving disputes informally. It’s important to note that Lloyds aren’t the provider of the services here – so in deciding what is fair and reasonable, I’m looking at their particular role as a provider of financial services. In doing so I note that because Mr S paid for this transaction using a Lloyds credit card, both chargeback and a Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) Section 75 (S75) claim could possibly help him. So in deciding what is fair and reasonable I’ve focused on this. Mr S used his Lloyds credit card to book a package holiday from a provider I shall call ‘W’ for £2,441.72. Mr S unfortunately had several complaints regarding the holiday experience and as this wasn’t addressed by W, he contacted Lloyds to raise a refund claim. Chargeback Chargeback is the process by which settlement disputes are resolved between card issuers and merchants. A consumer isn’t entitled to chargeback by right. But where there are grounds to raise one and it has reasonable grounds for success, it is good practice for one to be raised by the card issuer. However, a chargeback isn’t guaranteed to succeed and is governed by the limitations of the card scheme rules. I understand Lloyds didn’t raise a chargeback in this case and I’ve considered whether this was appropriate here. Chargeback rights are limited and depend, in this case, on there being clear evidence that the service provided was not as described, and the available evidence needs to meet the relevant scheme requirements. Here, I’m not persuaded the concerns raised would have met that threshold or there would have been a reasonable prospect of a successful claim through the scheme. In these circumstances, I think it was reasonable for Lloyds not to pursue a chargeback, and instead to consider the complaint under S75, which is better suited for assessing disputes about the overall quality of services provided.

-- 1 of 3 --

I therefore move onto my considerations of how Lloyds considered the S75 claim. S75 S75 provides that in certain circumstances the borrower under a credit agreement has an equal right to claim against the credit provider if there is either a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier of goods and services. To assess a valid claim, Lloyds would’ve needed to consider all relevant evidence for the alleged breach of contract or misrepresentation. But for there to be a valid claim under S75 there are certain technical requirements and I’m satisfied they’ve been met here. Mr S has several complaints and consistent with the investigator’s approach, I don’t intend to discuss every single one in detail. That’s because S75 looks at whether there has been a breach of contract or misrepresentation overall, rather than providing a remedy for each element of dissatisfaction in isolation. I’ve therefore considered the substance of the complaint overall, focussing on whether the issues, taken together or individually, amount to a failure to provide the holiday with reasonable skill and care or otherwise give rise to a valid claim. Firstly, Mr S has raised concerns about the outbound flight departing later than scheduled and the condition of the aircraft, including that it was dirty and unkempt. Mr S also mentioned limited availability of overhead locker space. While I don’t doubt this would have been frustrating, delays and issues with cleanliness can arise from time to time when travelling. Taking the locker space into account as well, I don’t think these issues, in themselves, necessarily indicate that the services were not provided with reasonable care and skill. Mr S has also raised concerns about industrial strike action during the holiday and the hotel staff cleaning the rooms early in the morning as a result. While I appreciate this, industrial action is generally outside W’s control, and forms part of the broader travel environment rather than the contracted services themselves. Mr S also said the beach was closed during the holiday due to a pollution issue. I appreciate this would’ve been disappointing. However, I’ve seen that he was notified of this in advance of travel around two weeks before departure and was offered the option to amend the booking to change the hotel or destination. In addition, the closure of a beach due to environmental factors such as pollution is outside W’s control and forms part of the local conditions rather than the services contracted for in those circumstances. I also want to provide some detail on Mr S’s airport distance complaint which he specifically commented on following our investigator’s view. Proximity to airport I’ve considered Mr S’s point that the hotel description referred to a transfer time of around 20 minutes, and his comments that W don’t operate flights from the nearest airport which would’ve had this travel time. However, I’m not persuaded this amounts to a misrepresentation.

-- 2 of 3 --

I’m satisfied the reference to transfer time is a general description of the hotel’s proximity to the nearest airport, rather than a statement about which airport this provider would use. I’ve not seen evidence that the provider said or implied that flights would operate to the closer airport or otherwise made a false statement of fact about the travel arrangements. In those circumstances, I’m not satisfied the legal test for misrepresentation is met. I’ve also considered whether the longer transfer time amounts to a breach of contract. I’ve not seen evidence that a transfer duration forms part of the contractual terms. While the transfer appears to have been a little over an hour longer than the general description suggested, I’m satisfied this reflects the airport used rather than a failure in how the overall holiday was provided. In the circumstances, I don’t consider this represents a failure to exercise reasonable skill and care, with consideration of the implied terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I therefore don’t conclude that compensation is warranted here. Having considered the complaint overall, I’m not persuaded that what happened means the holiday wasn’t provided as agreed or that there’s a valid claim under S75. I therefore won’t be asking Lloyds to do anything more. My final decision For the reasons explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Viral Patel Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --