National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-6159207

The complaint Mr S is unhappy with the way National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest) handled his claim for a refund through a chargeback. What happened Mr S bought a package of marketing services from a merchant, to develop a marketing funnel and manage advertising for a new business venture. He paid the merchant around £4,450 in January 2025, and around a further £4,260 in March 2025, using his debit card with NatWest. Mr S wasn’t happy with the way the merchant delivered the services, so he made a complaint, asking for a 50% refund and further work to improve the marketing funnel. The merchant offered to change some of the services to support Mr S further but didn’t agree to refund him. Mr S contacted NatWest in July 2025, asking it to raise a chargeback dispute and refund the payments. NatWest initially said Mr S had raised the chargeback outside the card scheme’s time limits, but it reopened the claim after it became clear the services were ongoing. NatWest asked Mr S for more information, but he says it communicated poorly and failed to update him about the claim. Mr S says as he wasn’t getting any information from NatWest, he had to negotiate a new contract with the merchant to mitigate his losses. He told NatWest to withdraw the chargeback but complained that he was unhappy he’d lost the opportunity to get a full refund because of NatWest’s delays and errors. NatWest reviewed the complaint and agreed it should have supported Mr S more with the chargeback, and communicated more clearly. It paid Mr S £150 to reflect the impact this had on him, but said it still thought the chargeback had been correctly handled. Mr S was unhappy with the time it took NatWest to respond to the complaint, and it paid him a further £150 to apologise for the complaint handling. Mr S brought his complaint about NatWest to our service. Our Investigator initially thought Mr S didn’t meet the criteria of an eligible complainant, as he had acted within his business, trade or profession when taking out the contract. Mr S disagreed and said at the time he took out the services, he wasn’t trading and hadn’t set up a business. The Investigator reconsidered, and agreed that Mr S was eligible to complain. But, the Investigator didn’t think NatWest had treated Mr S unfairly when handling the chargeback. She said NatWest ought to have considered the timescales for the chargeback differently, but it did take the claim forward. She recognised NatWest had asked Mr S for the same information many times, which added to his frustration. But she thought it was reasonable for NatWest to not take the chargeback forward, as Mr S’ claim for a purchase made for a business potentially went against the terms and conditions of his personal account.

-- 1 of 5 --

Mr S disagreed with this outcome. He said NatWest needed to consider the card scheme rules for the chargeback, not the terms of his account. He said he wasn’t aware NatWest was considering his claim when he was negotiating a remedy with the merchant, and said he lost out on a refund as a result. Mr S asked for a final decision on his complaint – and so the case has now been passed to me to consider. 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. Having done so, I broadly agree with the outcome reached by the Investigator – and I’ll explain why. Mr S has made several detailed points in his complaint. I’ve considered everything he’s said and all the information on the file. But in my decision, I don’t intend to refer to everything or address every point made. I mean no discourtesy by this, instead I will focus on what I see as being the key outstanding points following the Investigator’s outcome, and the reasons for making my decision. Our Investigator initially thought Mr S wasn’t an eligible complainant, but she later changed her mind. She also had concerns about the transactions in the claim breaching the terms and conditions of Mr S’ account, as they were for business purposes. I should clarify NatWest hasn’t raised these concerns with our service. In any event, I think it’s likely Mr S is an eligible consumer. I say this because Mr S has explained he purchased the marketing services as he was looking to develop a new business and this would potentially help him. So, I think it's fair to say Mr S was likely acting as a consumer with the aim of enhancing his knowledge and expertise in a particular area. As such, I don’t think I need to consider these concerns in more detail in my decision. Instead, I’ve focused on the merits of the chargeback claim itself, and the way NatWest handled it. Chargeback claim For context, a chargeback is a process under the relevant card scheme, set up to settle disputes between card holders and merchants. These schemes are voluntary, and the rules about when a customer can request a chargeback as well as the requirements of both parties involved are set by the card scheme itself. It’s important that I clarify it’s not for me to decide any dispute between Mr S and the merchant. I’m only looking at whether NatWest has acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances of the complaint. I’ve considered the card scheme rules for the relevant code and thought about the evidence NatWest reasonably would have wanted to see before taking the chargeback further. I think the most appropriate reason code for Mr S’ claim is likely to have been “goods and services were not as described or defective.” The card scheme rules set out that the goods or services should match their description, and that would include claims that the merchant misrepresented the services offered. Mr S contacted NatWest about the dispute in the beginning of July 2025. NatWest initially closed the claim as being outside the time limits, but it later reviewed this. After reopening the dispute, NatWest asked Mr S for a copy of the invoice several times, saying it needed to see this before it could proceed with the claim.

-- 2 of 5 --

Mr S says he wasn’t provided with an invoice or written contract for the services until after he complained – and he disputes that the contract the merchant then provided is accurate. I think NatWest acted fairly by asking for a written contract for the services though, as it would be very challenging for NatWest to establish whether the services were provided as described without this. In the absence of other evidence though, I think it’s reasonable for NatWest to rely on the contract the merchant provided when considering what services were being offered to Mr S. I say this because the card scheme rules say the cardholder must provide a reasonably specific description of the goods/services purchased when the claim is raised. As the merchant provided a copy of a contract with electronic signatures from Mr S and his business partner, I think the card scheme would likely have considered this evidence from the merchant if the chargeback had been taken further. The merchant’s contract says Mr S (and his business partner) would receive a marketing funnel followed by 30 days of ad management services. It also set out a list of “deliverables” including strategy and market research, funnel development and optimisation and dedicated ad management. Mr S claims the merchant’s services were not as described when sold. In summary he says: - The services were of poor quality and outsourced to contractors in Asia. - Materials were AI written and needed extensive corrections. - He had concerns about the sales video produced for his business venture. - He received minimal support. - Ads were launched with faulty logic and without optimization. - He didn’t receive genuine weekly reports. - Communication became sporadic and got worse once he made a complaint. The card scheme rules don’t set out exactly what evidence is required for a claim, so I would expect NatWest to consider reasonable evidence from both parties. Mr S provided chains of emails between himself and the merchant, setting out his disappointment at the services provided. He requested the merchant refund 50% of the cost of the package in addition to providing further services to improve the marketing package. The merchant disagreed with many of the claims Mr S made and set out why it thought it had provided the agreed services. The merchant didn’t agree to give Mr S a partial refund, instead offering to review his services and find a way to move forward with the relationship. I’ve looked through the evidence Mr S sent to NatWest with his claim, and while it’s clear he was unhappy with the merchant, I don’t think this is enough to support that he didn’t receive the services on the available contract. I think it would be reasonable for NatWest to expect enough evidence to establish what the contract included, and supporting evidence to demonstrate parts of the agreed contract weren’t provided. And I think it’s likely this is the sort of evidence the card scheme would have expected to see if the chargeback had been taken forward to the arbitration stage. I also think some of what Mr S claims is subjective – while he might think the merchant’s services were of poor quality, others might have felt satisfied with the services. I don’t doubt Mr S was disappointed with the merchant’s actions, but this strength of feeling wouldn’t be enough for NatWest to raise a valid chargeback claim.

-- 3 of 5 --

I think it’s likely the chargeback scheme doesn’t lend itself to the type of dispute Mr S has here. Mr S has referred to other contract law, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which wouldn’t form part of the considerations of the card scheme. Instead, it would consider the claim on its own scheme rules, and this could be far narrower than pursuing the claim via other means. Having considered the evidence available to NatWest when Mr S made the chargeback claim, I don’t think it was unreasonable for it to ask Mr S for supporting evidence before raising the chargeback. In any event, if NatWest had proceeded with the chargeback sooner, I don’t think it had a reasonable prospect of success, as the card scheme would likely have placed more weight on the merchant’s contract, and expected evidence from Mr S to demonstrate the services on that contract hadn’t been received. I therefore don’t think NatWest needs to refund the payments to Mr S. Customer support Mr S is also unhappy with the way NatWest supported him with his dispute. In general, I’d expect NatWest to provide Mr S with clear and timely information about the dispute process. NatWest initially closed the chargeback as it thought it was outside the time limits. The confusion was because the payments had been made over 120 days before Mr S claimed, and NatWest hadn’t realised the services Mr S paid for were continuous. I think NatWest made an error handling the chargeback here – and I can understand why this might have added to Mr S’ frustration. Once NatWest became aware of the error, it reopened the claim and asked for more information. However, NatWest asked Mr S to provide the same information many times, despite him not having a contract to provide. NatWest has also accepted Mr S spent a lot of time on hold trying to speak to the claims team. I’ve thought about the impact this had on Mr S, and I think it also caused him more inconvenience and frustration, which was easily avoidable. Mr S was also unhappy NatWest responded to his complaint outside the timescales set by the regulator and said it had handled the whole matter poorly. NatWest responded shortly after the time limit ended, but I can appreciate again why this could have added to Mr S’ frustration about the whole dispute. I appreciate Mr S says the poor customer service and delays meant he lost the opportunity to claim a full refund through a chargeback, as he renegotiated the contract with the merchant instead. He agreed to the new contract while NatWest was still requesting information for the claim, and it ultimately decided to proceed with the chargeback claim in August 2025. Mr S then told NatWest to withdraw the claim as he had already negotiated a new contract. There isn’t a guarantee of a full refund through the chargeback scheme as I’ve explained already. The evidence I’ve seen doesn’t persuade me Mr S’ claim had a reasonable prospect of success, as I don’t think there was enough evidence to support that the merchant failed to provide services in line with the contract. So, I don’t think I can reasonably conclude Mr S has lost out on a full refund because of the way NatWest handled the chargeback claim. But I do think NatWest ought to have provided him with better support during his dispute.

-- 4 of 5 --

NatWest paid Mr S £150 to reflect the poor customer service he received, and a further £150 to reflect delays handling his complaint. I’ve thought about these payments and the impact NatWest’s errors had on Mr S, and I think the total award of £300 is broadly in line with any award I would have made. I therefore don’t think NatWest needs to do anything further to put things right for Mr S. My final decision My final decision is that I do not 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 22 April 2026. Hannah Dunkley Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --