Bank of Scotland plc · DRN-6026908

The complaint Mr O complains Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax (“Halifax”) won’t refund the money he lost when he paid for a service he didn’t receive. What happened Mr O signed up to a training course offered by a provider I’ll refer to as “F”. F was promoting a lifetime course and mentoring scheme that purported to teach its students how to invest in the property market. Mr O paid a deposit for the course with his Halifax debit card amounting to £199. He then made a further two payments of £1,000 and £5,600 from his Halifax account in May and September 2024. These two payments were made by bank transfer. However, a few months after the payments were made, F went into liquidation and was unable to provide the services Mr O paid for. Mr O contacted Halifax and requested a refund. He said he’d paid for services he did not receive. Halifax refunded Mr O the £199 he had paid via debit card under the relevant chargeback scheme but it declined to refund the remainder of Mr O’s loss. It said there was no scheme in place for him to receive a refund of the payments made via bank transfer. And as the transfers were made to a legitimate company, they wouldn’t be considered fraudulent. Halifax said it couldn’t help Mr O further. Mr O was unhappy with Halifax’s response. He said he knew of another person who had been able to get their money back and he didn’t think Halifax was treating him fairly. Mr O brought his complaint to this service where one of our investigators looked into things. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said there were no rules or regulations that applied to bank transfers that meant Halifax should refund customers who paid for a service they didn’t receive. Mr O didn’t agree with the investigator and asked for his case to be considered by an ombudsman, so it 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. Having done so, I’d firstly like to say how sorry I am to hear about what’s happened to Mr O. I can fully understand why he wants to get his money back. However, whilst I’m sorry to disappoint him, I agree with the outcome reached by the investigator, for the same reasons as they have previously set out. This isn’t a complaint I can uphold. I’m satisfied Halifax has

-- 1 of 3 --

considered Mr O’s claim under the applicable regulations and it doesn’t need to provide Mr O with a refund of the amount lost. I’ll explain why in more detail below. Chargeback Chargeback is a voluntary scheme which is operated by some card issuers and it is dealt with under the applicable cards’ rules. The option to raise a chargeback is available in a range of circumstances where there's a dispute between a cardholder and a merchant. There's no automatic right to a chargeback. But as a general rule, we say it's fair to expect a card issuer to attempt a chargeback if there's a reasonable prospect that it will succeed. In order to raise a chargeback in the particular circumstances of this case, Halifax needed to cite one of the specific reasons set out in the scheme rules. In this case, this was for goods paid for and not received. The chargeback claim in regard to Mr O’s card payment was successful and Mr O received a refund of the amount he paid via debit card. However, the chargeback scheme rules do not apply to bank transfers and this is the reason only the payment Mr O paid via debit card has been refunded. There are no rules that apply to banks transfers that say Mr O should receive a refund for goods and services paid for but not received. And there is no mechanism in place for Halifax to have claimed these funds back from F either. In short, Halifax doesn’t have to refund customers where they have paid funds to a legitimate business that has ultimately failed. And so, I can’t fairly and reasonably say Halifax has done anything wrong in declining to offer Mr O a refund of the amount lost now. I understand Mr O was disappointed that Halifax had originally treated his claim as a fraud claim and I understand why this made him feel that he had not been listened to. However, it appears that Halifax initially considered whether Mr O had been the victim of a scam because if the payments had been deemed fraudulent, Mr O may have been able to get his money back. So, I’m satisfied that at the time, Halifax was trying to establish if there was a possibility that Mr O was due a refund under the only regulations that applied to bank transfers rather than deliberately failing to engage with his complaint. I understand Mr O knows of someone else who paid funds to F who has now received a refund. I’m not aware of the reason why the bank has chosen to offer someone else a refund. However, I also don’t think this means Mr O should be due a refund from Halifax too. As I’ve said above, there are no rules or regulations that apply to bank transfers that mean Mr O is now due a refund from Halifax. And The Financial Ombudsman Service assesses each case bought to it on its own individual merits. In the particular circumstances of this case, I’m not persuaded that Halifax needs to offer Mr O a refund of the amount lost and I’m not persuaded it needs to take any further action. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Emly Hanley Hayes Ombudsman

-- 2 of 3 --

-- 3 of 3 --