Marks and Spencer Financial Services PLC · DRN-6202777

The complaint Mrs B complains that Marks and Spencer Financial Services PLC (‘Marks & Spencer’) failed to refund her after she raise a dispute with it. This was in relation to a purchase made on her credit card account. What happened In September 2024, Mrs B purchased return flights with an airline I’ll call ‘X’. These flights were for Mrs B and two others and were so they could attend her sister’s wedding. The total cost was £1,363.53 and Mrs B paid using her Marks & Spencer credit card. The booking also included optional extras (additional leg room and checked in baggage). The flights were due to depart in August 2025 and return in September 2025. In April 2025, Mrs B contacted Marks & Spencer to ask for a full refund for the cost of the flights. Mrs B explained that due to her sister’s recent illness diagnosis, the wedding was sadly no longer able to take place and so the flights were no longer required. The advisor Mrs B spoke to asked if she had spoken to X. Mrs B said all X wanted to do was provide a voucher. But as everything had now been cancelled and her sister wasn’t able to travel, Mrs B said she would rather have her money back. Mrs B was advised that she needed to complete a dispute form, which would be emailed to her. Marks & Spencer said once it had this, it could then consider her claim further. In May 2025, Mrs B sent Marks & Spencer a letter outlining her claim. Marks & Spencer responded to this and advised it would still need a despite form to be completed and enclosed one for Mrs B. This was completed and returned by Mrs B in early June 2025. After receiving the form, a Marks & Spencer advisor spoke to Mrs B and requested a copy of X’s terms and conditions. Mrs B didn’t think this was necessary as she was raising a claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The call ended with Mrs B asking for a call back when the advisor had the correct information. On 15 July 2025, Mrs B complained to Marks & Spencer. Mrs B again explained her situation and why she wasn’t now able to use the flights she’d booked. She explained she wanted a full refund. A response was issued on 19 July 2025. In this Marks & Spencer said the request for the terms and conditions was correct and would be required to pursue a section 75 claim, so no error had taken place. Mrs B contacted Marks & Spencer following this and explained that as well not travelling due to her sister’s illness and the wedding no longer able to take place, she was now also unable to travel due to breaking her hand. Mrs B said she had sent the terms and conditions via the post. Due to issues on this call, it was transferred to another advisor. Mrs B explained that her sister was now in hospital and that she herself had had surgery on her hand. So, while the booking hadn’t yet been cancelled, the flights were not going to be used. It was agreed that Mrs B would email a copy of X’s terms and conditions so these could be reviewed. After reviewing the claim, Marks & Spencer said the terms and conditions weren’t complete, but they did explain the booking was non-refundable. Marks & Spencer said it could look at the matter further if the full terms and conditions were provided. A further call took place afterwards where Marks & Spencer said to have a valid claim under section 75 there needed to be a breach of contract of misrepresentation. Mrs B said X had only offered her a voucher, but this wasn’t to the value of the booking.

-- 1 of 4 --

It was explained chargeback would be considered first before looking at section 75. Marks & Spencer confirmed the matter had now been passed to the section 75 team. The advisor said to say X had acted incorrectly, they would need to see the full terms and conditions and booking confirmation. Because based on what had been provided so far, there wasn’t sufficient evidence for the claim to be upheld. Mrs B was told she had up to six years, so she could wait before submitting the further requested evidence. In December 2025, Mrs B contacted Marks & Spencer again to provide what was needed. She said X wouldn’t do anything more to help. Mrs B explained she had to have another operation on her hand and that her sister has sadly now passed away. Mrs B repeated that she wanted a full refund. Marks & Spencer responded in January 2026 and said it wasn’t able to help as there hadn’t been a breach of contract. Mrs B asked for a complaint to be logged. On 20 January 2026, Marks & Spencer issued its final response. In this it repeated that given the terms and conditions, the booking was non-refundable, so no breach of contract had occurred. Unhappy with this, Mrs B referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. While the complaint was with our service, Marks & Spencer offered £100 for the distress and inconvenience Mrs B had encountered during the dispute journey. This included the lack of clear communication, poor complaint handling and lack of support. Marks & Spencer acknowledged clarity could’ve been provided to set expectations. The complaint was passed to one of our investigators to consider. They concluded Marks & Spencer was correct in advising that it couldn’t assist Mrs B with a refund, either via chargeback or section 75. They said the £100 on offer for the service failings was fair for the distress and inconvenience caused. Mrs B didn’t agree and said Marks & Spencer had caused her a great deal of anxiety and stress when she is a vulnerable person. As Mrs B didn’t agree, 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 would like to start by saying I’m very sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs B’s sister. I fully acknowledge how upsetting this must’ve been for her and her family. She has my deepest condolences. The difficulties at that time were compounded by the surgeries Mrs B required on her hand. I truly hope she is on the mend and feeling better. I would also like to point out I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. As the investigator explained, there are two ways that a bank can assist customers with disputes such as the one Mrs B has raised here. This is via the chargeback scheme, or through a section 75 claim. I’ve therefore looked at both, to see if Marks & Spencer should’ve done more to assist Mrs B. Chargeback A consumer is not entitled to chargeback by right. But where there are grounds to raise one and it has a reasonable prospect of success, it is good practice for one to be raised by the card issuer. Once a refund is requested by a consumer, the card issuer will usually look at the card scheme rules to see if the nature of the dispute is covered under the list of possible chargeback reasons. If so, relevant evidence might be requested to back up the claim and the chargeback is raised.

-- 2 of 4 --

For Mrs B’s credit card account, the relevant card scheme is MasterCard. Here I don’t believe any chargeback had a reasonable prospect of success. I say this regardless of any potential issues relating to whether a chargeback was raised within the relevant timeframes that apply or not. The dispute Mrs B raises here doesn’t really fit under the reason codes given in MasterCard’s chargeback rules. The most appropriate code would be ‘goods or services not provided’. But a chargeback raised under that reason would’ve likely been defended by X on the basis the flights were available. X hadn’t cancelled the flights or said Mrs B wasn’t able to use them. So, I don’t think Marks & Spencer acted unfairly in not raising a chargeback. I’ve therefore gone on to consider the section 75 position for Mrs B and whether Marks & Spencer was right to not pursue a claim any further via this method for her. Section 75 Section 75 is part of the CCA. It allows, in limited circumstances, someone buying goods and/or services on credit to claim for a breach of contract or a misrepresentation against their credit provider when there is a like claim against the supplier. There are some requirements set out in the CCA which have to be met before deciding whether there has been a breach of contract or misrepresentation. In this case I’ve not considered these requirements further, as I don’t believe it makes a difference to the overall outcome. That being I’m not persuaded here there has been a breach of contract by X which Marks & Spencer would be jointly liable for. I’ll explain why. As I’ve said above, the flights were available for Mrs B and the other parties on the booking to use. The reason they weren’t able to travel wasn’t down to X’s action or anything it had done. X didn’t prevent Mrs B (or the other parties on the booking) from flying so therefore did not breach its contract. In her calls with Marks & Spencer, Mrs B said when she spoke to X it refused to provide a refund and would only offer a voucher for a lower amount that the cost of the original booking. I don’t believe that Mrs B actually ever cancelled her booking, so she was likely classified as no show. But in any event, I’m satisfied after reviewing the terms and conditions that the booking Mrs B made was non-refundable. There are clauses where X will provide an involuntary refund, but unfortunately those didn’t apply to Mrs B’s circumstances. So contractually she wasn’t entitled to a refund. I do fully understand how upsetting this whole situation has been for Mrs B. I accept she has lost a significant sum of money here for something she paid for and through no fault of her own didn’t receive the benefit of. This is on top of the personal circumstances that have impacted her over the last 12 months. But I’m only able to consider the actions of Marks & Spencer. And having done so, I don’t believe its acted unfairly in refusing to refund Mrs B. Handling of the dispute Aside from the obvious distress caused by Mrs B personal circumstances, I believe the main cause of any other distress here is down to her not being refunded. Which is of course understandable. But that distress isn’t something I can require Marks & Spencer to compensate Mrs B for. Marks & Spencer has offered Mrs B £100 for its handling of the dispute. I believe this to be fair in the circumstances. Ultimately, I don’t believe any failings have impacted the outcome of either claim or materially caused things to take longer than it should’ve. But I do believe there have been occasions where Marks & Spencer could’ve managed Mrs B’s expectations better, been clearer in its communication and provided clarity on its processes. This has caused Mrs B some level of distress and inconvenience, especially

-- 3 of 4 --

when she’s advised of her vulnerabilities during this time. For this Marks & Spencer should pay Mrs B the £100 it’s already offered. My final decision I think Marks and Spencer Financial Services PLC has already made an offer which is fair in all the circumstances. So, my decision is that I’m partially upholding this complaint and require Marks and Spencer Financial Services PLC to pay Mrs B £100, if it hasn’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Paul Blower Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --