Bank acted reasonably when assessing – and rejecting – chargeback request

Categories:

Cards, Chargebacks,

Summary:

In March 2026, Hugh made four credit card payments totalling $6,064 while overseas. He said he was drugged and extorted, and did not have capacity to authorise the payments. Hugh asked the bank to seek a chargeback from the credit card company on the grounds of a fraud or unauthorised transaction. The bank declined to do so. It said it might be able to make a chargeback request on other grounds, but Hugh said those grounds required him to accept he authorised the payments.

Published:

August 2026

Our investigation

The card’s rules set strict requirements for each type of chargeback request. Banks must ensure a chargeback claim is accurate and supported by evidence matching the reason relied on.

We found the grounds of fraud or unauthorised transaction were not available to Hugh. The payments were made using Hugh’s registered device and payment credentials. Under the card’s rules, the transactions were treated as authorised. The bank could not submit a fraud chargeback on that basis.

The bank considered the grounds of payment of an incorrect amount, based on Hugh’s comments that he recalled paying but believed he was overcharged. Such grounds required evidence of the agreed amount, such as a receipt oar invoice. Hugh did not have that evidence, but the bank was still willing to try using the material he had given.

The bank offered to seek a chargeback on the basis of services not received or not as described. But that required Hugh to confirm he participated in the transactions and explain what services he did not receive. Hugh refused to confirm such a statement because he said it was inaccurate.

We found the bank gave Hugh a fair opportunity to supply evidence and instructions for an alternative chargeback. The bank also acted with reasonable care and skill when assessing his request.