Barclays Bank PLC · DRN-6156628

The complaint Mr P has complained about the way Barclays Bank PLC trading as Barclaycard dealt with a claim he’d made for money back in relation to a purchase he’d made. What happened The circumstances of the complaint are well known so I’m not going to go over everything again in detail. But in summary, Mr P said he arranged a holiday for himself and his partner with flights from an airline I’ll call “M”. He used another bank’s card to book flights abroad followed by a return flight to the UK. Mr P said he found out that travel to one of the destinations abroad was dangerous and so he contacted M to amend the booking. He said M failed to tell him that if he didn’t utilise the original connecting flight for the return leg, his flight back to the UK would be cancelled. Mr P said he arrived at the airport on 2 December 2024 and was told his ticket back to the UK had been cancelled. He said M forced him to buy two tickets back to the UK at an extortionately high rate. He paid for one ticket using another bank’s card and paid for the other with his Barclaycard credit card at a cost of around £1,200. He said he thought he could claim back the money as he had protection. Mr P contacted M to complain, and it agreed, as an exception, to reinstate his original tickets that he’d not used, for use at a later time, but Mr P said he didn’t have need for them. Mr P therefore contacted Barclaycard and the other bank he’d used to buy the return flights. Mr P said the other bank secured a refund for him because M didn’t provide its terms and conditions when a chargeback was raised. But Barclaycard didn’t uphold the claim. Mr P said Barclaycard was unfair not to raise the claim. He said M missed several opportunities to tell him its rules about cancelling second leg flights where the first leg isn’t taken. He said M could have used common sense and simply allowed him to board the flight back to the UK under the original booking. He said by reinstating the original flight in subsequent correspondence it should have done this beforehand. Barclaycard said the service Mr P paid for using his Barclaycard was available and there were no chargeback rights. But it paid him £75 compensation in relation to delays in responding and not receiving an email reply. Mr P decided to refer his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman to consider. He also said M treated him and his partner unfairly by writing an erroneous report following his check in, which impacted him on his return to the UK. One of our investigators looked into things and thought Barclaycard’s answer was broadly fair. Mr P didn’t agree. He said he was mis-sold the ticket paid for using his Barclaycard and that M failed on two occasions to give him correct information in respect of the ticket rules. He said M had sold him two tickets for the same journey and subsequently reactivated the original ticket. He said mis-selling can occur over a period of time through several interactions and that it doesn’t need to be one discrete event just prior to using the card. As things weren’t resolved, the complaint has been passed to me to decide.

-- 1 of 3 --

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 want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I want to assure Mr P and Barclaycard that I’ve reviewed everything on file. And if I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. I also want to set out that I’m very sorry to hear Mr P and his partner needed to buy two extra tickets and didn’t have a good experience. I can’t imagine how they must feel, but I thank him for taking the time to bring his complaint. What I need to consider is whether Barclaycard – as a provider of financial services – has acted fairly and reasonably in the way it handled Mr P’s request for getting money back. It’s important to note Barclaycard isn’t the supplier. I’ve gone on to think about the specific card protections that are available. In situations like this, Barclaycard can consider assessing a claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or raising a chargeback. The chargeback process provides a way for a card issuer to ask for a payment to be refunded in certain circumstances. The chargeback process is subject to rules made by the relevant card scheme. It’s not a guaranteed way of getting money back. I think Mr P used the service he’d paid for with his Barclaycard. The flight went ahead so I think Barclaycard would have had valid concerns there might not be a way to claim back the value for a service that was utilised. I don’t think there was scope to use the chargeback condition for services not provided for example. Moreover, from looking at M’s response to Mr P in January 2025 it said the ticket was governed by a restrictive policy and that date changes need to be made prior to departure, and reimbursement isn’t permitted under any circumstance. It offered to authorise a change without penalty but I don’t think it’s said that the initial tickets bought were mis-sold. I think it’s quite common for 2nd leg journeys to be cancelled if the customer doesn’t utilise the first leg unless there was a pre-agreed arrangement. I appreciate Mr P feels like M has misled him when he either bought the initial tickets or spoke to it about amending the itinerary, but I think any issues relating to the initial tickets would be linked to the original transaction that wasn’t made using his Barclaycard. Therefore, having considered things carefully, when Mr P used his Barclaycard to pay for flights to the UK, those flights were supplied, and there’s insufficient evidence they weren’t required or that M misled him about that because I think M has a policy the return leg was cancelled because Mr P didn’t use the preceding flight. So I don’t consider there’d have been a reasonable prospect of success through chargeback in relation to the supply of the services, even had Barclaycard decided to raise it. The thrust of Mr P’s claim was in relation to it being unfair he had to buy replacement or ‘duplicate’ flights. So this is what I’ve focussed on. Mr P also raised an issue with regards to the manner in which M provided its service and a report it wrote after check-in. While I’m very sorry to hear Mr P was unhappy with the experience, I think Barclaycard would’ve wanted to see more supporting evidence at the time the claim was raised that the service M supplied was defective in some way. I don’t consider there were grounds for it to raise the chargeback on that basis, based on what it had at the time.

-- 2 of 3 --

The other way Barclaycard may have been able to assist Mr P was by considering a section 75 claim. Section 75 is a statutory protection that enables Mr P to make a like claim against Barclaycard for breach of contract or misrepresentation by a supplier paid by credit card in respect of an agreement it had with him for the provision of goods or services. But there are certain conditions that need to be met for section 75 to apply. It looks as though the transaction fell within the relevant financial limits. It’s not clear there was a debtor creditor supplier agreement in place because Mr P wasn’t able to supply some of the evidence our investigator asked for, which would’ve helped us review the arrangement. However, even if Barclaycard were to find the necessary conditions for a claim to be considered under section 75 did exist, I think Barclaycard would have wanted to see more to demonstrate there’d been a breach of contract or misrepresentation. For similar reasons to what I’ve said above, I think Barclaycard would have considered the contract it financed wasn’t breached because the flights went ahead and were available, and I think it would’ve wanted to see more to show M made a false statement that induced Mr P into the contract, or that there was a failing in the negotiations for the flight it provided the credit for. Overall, I have to bear in mind that Mr P bought the initial tickets using a different bank’s card. If Mr P was misled, or there were problems relating to those tickets I don’t think Barclaycard can fairly be held liable for that. The flight relating to the tickets Mr P bought using his Barclaycard were supplied as agreed. And the cost for the originally booked or return flight that Mr P took can’t be considered a consequential loss in relation to the Barclaycard transaction. Barclaycard paid Mr P £75 for a delay in sending its response, and for not receiving an email reply. I think this seems broadly fair in the circumstances. While I know Mr P will be disappointed, I don’t find I have the grounds to pay him the refund he’s seeking, for the reasons given above. My final decision My final decision is that Barclays Bank PLC trading as Barclaycard has done enough to put things right. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Simon Wingfield Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --