The bank declined to act on her chargeback request. It said the purchase was only for training that had been provided and the dispute about marketing and an email launch was a matter between her and the provider. Chelsea complained to us that the bank had failed to process her chargeback request, and said the marketing support and email launch were part of the training package she bought. She also complained that the bank later mishandled her complaint.

Our investigation

After examining the documents Chelsea supplied, including the agreement she signed before the training started and information describing the training programme, together with information available about the training at the time she made the payments, we concluded that she received the training as described by the provider. The documents did not say that marketing support or a dedicated email launch formed part of the training package. Chelsea said the provider later discussed an email launch, but this did not establish that it formed part of the purchase. As a result, the bank had no valid basis on which to seek a chargeback.

Our review of the bank’s communications about the chargeback request and her later complaint showed the bank responded promptly and reconsidered the matter after Chelsea gave it more information. However, its conclusion remained the same – that she had received the training promised by the provider – and we considered this was consistent with the information available.

Chelsea had complained about inaccuracies in some of the bank’s communications, but we found these to be mainly typographical and minor factual errors that did not affect its assessment of the chargeback request or complaint. We found the bank responded to Chelsea’s complaint within the required timeframes and treated her fairly and reasonably.

Outcome

We did not uphold Chelsea’s complaint.