Capital One (Europe) plc · DRN-6141044

The complaint Ms D complained about the way Capital One (Europe) plc dealt with a recurring transaction that was charged on her credit card. What happened The circumstances of the complaint are well known to the parties, so I’m not going to go over everything again in detail. But to summarise in September 2024 Ms D signed up for a membership with a company I’ll call T. She initially signed up for an annual membership with auto renewal, at a promotional price of £1 which was paid using Ms D’s Capital One credit card. However, after the promotional period ended, the renewal price of the membership was around £40. In September 2025 Ms D’s credit card was charged with the renewal fee. Ms D complained to T and it responded to explain that when members sign up to the membership it informs them of the initial term and price and the future term and price. It said it told her that the membership was set to auto renew unless it was cancelled by the renewal date, this was detailed in the terms and conditions which Ms D accepted. As it didn’t receive any contact from Ms D before the renewal date, the membership renewed and her credit card was charged. T said that it sent Ms D a renewal notice and this email was opened. However, Ms D said that although she opened the email she wasn’t able to go through the process as she is neurodivergent. Ms D raised a dispute with Capital One and said that she wasn’t contacted before the renewal date, and she didn’t agree to the membership fee being taken. Capital One raised a chargeback but this was defended by T. Capital One informed Ms D and she raised a complaint. However, Capital One didn’t agree that it made an error. Ms D referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. Our investigator considered the complaint but didn’t think Capital One acted unfairly by declining to pursue the chargeback. He also didn’t think there was a breach of contract or misrepresentation under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Section 75) that Capital One could be held liable for. Ms D didn’t agree. She said her concern wasn’t that Capital One failed to follow the technical rules of the chargeback scheme but that the dispute only factored a chargeback and didn’t consider whether the circumstances reflected that she gave authorisation and consent. She also explained that Capital One didn’t consider that due to her ADHD she wasn’t able to cancel the renewal. As the matter remains unresolved 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

I’ve considered the evidence provided by both parties. I have focussed on what I consider to be the key points. If I don’t comment on a specific point this is not intended as a discourtesy – it simply reflects the informal nature of this service. Our powers allow me to do this. When considering what is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable, I must take into account relevant law and regulations; regulator’s rules including Consumer Duty, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and what I believe to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Where evidence is incomplete, inconsistent or contradictory, I reach my decision on the balance of probabilities – in other words, what I consider most likely to have happened in light of the available evidence and wider circumstances. I’m considering Capital One’s responsibilities as the financial services provider and the actions it took in considering the request for a refund. It’s important to note, I’m not considering a complaint against T. I’ve considered what options Capital One may have been able to explore to try and help Ms D with getting her money back. Authorisation The evidence shows that when Ms D signed up to the membership she agreed to the terms and conditions which included auto renewal. T provided evidence demonstrating that the terms and conditions clearly set out the renewal structure including the renewal fee which was around £40. I'm satisfied that this information was made available to Ms D at the point of signup and by proceeding with the membership she gave her consent to those terms. I've also seen evidence that T issued a renewal reminder by email prior to the renewal date. While Ms D has explained that she was unable to complete the cancellation process, I am satisfied that the notification itself was accessible. This supports T’s position that reasonable steps were taken to inform her of the upcoming renewal. The information Capital One received from T demonstrates that the membership was set to renew automatically and that Ms D had been informed of this during both sign up and prior to renewal. In these circumstances, I'm satisfied that Capital One acted fairly in relying on this evidence and treating the transaction as part of an ongoing recurring payment arrangement. I appreciate Ms D has said that due to her health condition she didn’t give informed consent. However, based on the information available I don’t think it was unfair for Capital One to conclude that Ms D had accepted the terms and conditions and agreed to the auto-renewal. This meant that further payments could be taken unless the membership was cancelled before the renewal date. So, I don’t think it’s unreasonable that Capital One treated the charge as authorised. I understand Ms D is unhappy as she feels that T didn’t consider her neurodiversity. However, I wouldn’t expect Capital One to take responsibility for T’s actions in this scenario. Other ways Capital One could have tried to get Ms D’s money back Capital One said it raised a chargeback claim for the renewal payment to T and this was defended. T provided evidence to support the transaction and explained why the payment was taken. T explained that the terms and conditions detailed that the auto renewal would be charged to the same account, so I’m satisfied that based on the information provided, Ms D was informed when she signed up that she was agreeing to a recurring transaction. It provided evidence of how to cancel and that it sent an email to Ms T’s email address which was opened. Because of this, I’m not persuaded that Capital One acted unfairly by not pursuing this any further.

-- 2 of 3 --

Another way Capital One may have been able to refund Ms D was by considering a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Section 75). However, I don’t think this would have resulted in a different outcome. I say this because Ms D didn’t complain that the membership was misrepresented to her and she didn’t evidence that T breached its contract. I appreciate Ms D will be disappointed with my decision. I understand she doesn’t think that Capital One considered her ability to complete the cancellation process. However, while I understand Ms D may find it difficult to process the information I don’t think it’s fair to expect Capital One as the financial Services to intervene with T’s processes. Based on the available evidence I don’t think it was unfair of Capital One to rely on the information it was provided to show that the recurring transaction was authorised and that the chargeback didn’t have reasonable prospect of success or that there was a breach of contract or misrepresentation it could be held liable for, as Ms D didn’t contact T to cancel prior to the renewal date. Therefore, I don’t find grounds to direct it to refund Ms D or to take any further action. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms D to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Amina Rashid Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --