J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase · DRN-5949686

The complaint Miss J is unhappy that J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase won’t refund a payment she says was overcharged by a merchant. What happened While Miss J was on holiday she purchased some items from a shop using her Chase debit card. The prices were quoted in Dirhams and based on weight, but she told Chase she thought the total would come to around £140. Miss J says an initial payment attempt was declined, which she assumed was down to being abroad, and the vendor said he would reduce the price to help it go through on the second try. Miss J says she used the shop’s Wi-Fi to log into her Chase app and added more money to her account. She then entered her PIN into the card reader again, and that payment went through, but she says the transaction amount on screen was obscured by the merchant. When she got back to her hotel she realised she’d been charged £202.74. Miss J contacted Chase, and it said a dispute couldn’t be raised yet as the payment was showing as pending. The following day Miss J followed up and reported she’d been overcharged on the transaction. Chase asked whether she had any proof of what the correct amount should have been, and Miss J confirmed she didn’t. After reviewing the claim, Chase said it wouldn’t be pursuing it further, as disputes in relation to incorrect amounts being charged required proof like a receipt under the card scheme rules. Miss J replied to say she had proof the merchant had done similar to others, in the form of negative online reviews, and argued she’d been scammed. She also said she’d done some research and felt the items she’d bought were actually worth much less than £140. Chase maintained its position and said it had closed its investigation, so Miss J raised a complaint. Initially it wasn’t logged correctly on Chase’s system, which meant she had to request it more than once and that caused a delay in the final response being issued. Chase’s final response reiterated that the claim had been correctly declined, but apologised that the complaint wasn’t properly recorded to start with. Miss J wasn’t happy with the response, and so referred the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Chase made a proactive offer of £75 compensation, when responding to our file request, to address the impact of the poor service given when it didn’t properly log the complaint. Miss J didn’t accept the offer, and maintained that Chase should refund her the whole amount of £202.74. One of our investigators considered everything and didn’t recommend the complaint about the disputed transaction was upheld. In her view, Miss J had authorised the payment, using chip and PIN – and the fact she couldn’t see the amount being charged on the terminal didn’t invalidate that authorisation. The investigator also didn’t think Chase should have been intervened prior to processing the payment, as the value wouldn’t have prompted any scam concerns. The investigator didn’t believe the disputed transaction should be refunded as a fraud claim either, as the intention to dishonestly deceive Miss J about the purpose of the payment

-- 1 of 4 --

hadn’t been shown. A chargeback claim also couldn’t be made under the relevant card scheme without proof that the incorrect amount was charged, like a receipt. The investigator did think the compensation now offered by Chase, for the poor service in relation to setting up the complaint, was fair though. Miss J didn’t accept the investigator’s opinion. In summary, she said: • The compensation had only been offered once the complaint had been referred to our service. Chase hadn’t wanted to address the poor service until we were involved. • The matter was never referred to Chase’s fraud team, so Miss J questioned how it could have concluded this wasn’t a scam. • Her complaint was twofold – firstly that Chase failed to protect her or investigate the fraud on her card, and she’d heard that other people affected by the same seller were able to resolve the issue with their banks. Secondly, she was unhappy that Chase didn’t deal with her complaint appropriately. It has upheld that part and made an offer, so it was unclear why the investigator concluded she wasn’t entitled to any compensation. • The value was irrelevant, as Miss J had put Chase on notice of the fraud – as had the seller’s reviews online, which she had provided. • Chase did have the power to challenge the payment made through the card provider, so it wasn’t correct of the investigator to suggest it didn’t. • She had provided proof of this seller’s conduct, which was enough to show the intent needed. Other amounts were also attempted on her card, but this hadn’t been mentioned by the investigator. As no agreement could be reached, Miss J asked for an ombudsman to reconsider the matter. So the complaint was 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’ve decided not to uphold Miss J’s complaint that Chase should refund the disputed transaction, but I will be telling the bank to pay the compensation it has offered. I know this isn’t the answer Miss J was hoping for and so this will come as a disappointment. I’m really sorry to hear about the situation she found herself in, and I can understand why she’d want to do all she can to recover the money she feels was overcharged. But I need to decide whether Chase can fairly and reasonably be held responsible for the loss she has claimed. Overall, I’ve decided that it can’t be. I’ll explain why. In broad terms, the starting position in law is that a payment services provider like Chase is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account and the Payment Services Regulations (PSRs). In this case Miss J authorised the payment in question – meaning she approved it to leave her account using chip and PIN. I appreciate she might not have realised how much she was consenting to, as she didn’t see the transaction amount that had been entered into the card terminal. But given the card payment was authenticated, it was reasonable for Chase to treat it as authorised by Miss J. That means she’s presumed liable in the first instance, but there are other considerations to work through.

-- 2 of 4 --

When thinking about Chase’s responsibility to protect Miss J from financial harm when processing the payment, I’ve taken into account the regulator’s rules and guidance; relevant codes of practice, along with what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. I’ve also applied Chase’s terms for the account, which say it can refuse or delay payments it reasonably believes are connected to a scam. Those together mean I consider Chase should fairly and reasonably have been on the lookout for the possibility of fraud at the time, and intervened if there were clear indications its customer might be at risk. That said, I don’t find the transaction Miss J has disputed would have warranted fraud checks from Chase prior to allowing it to leave her account. I appreciate it was going to a merchant abroad, but Chase knew Miss J was likely making it in person with her card. There was also a declined attempt before it, but again that wasn’t overly worrying as Miss J logged into the app shortly after that to top up her balance. It wasn’t a concerningly high amount either. So, overall, I find Chase acted fairly by processing the payment without first providing a scam warning or speaking with Miss J. I’ve then thought about whether Chase ought to have done more once Miss J reported she’d been overcharged. The terms for the account say it’ll refund “a payment where you’re tricked into sending money to a fraudster”, and card payments aren’t excluded. It goes on to clarify that’s where “you send money to someone for what you believed was a genuine purpose, but it was fraudulent, or you intended to send money to a particular person, but you were tricked into sending money to someone else”. In this case, Miss J intended to pay the merchant and believed the purpose of the transaction was to pay for goods. Those items were provided (albeit at a higher cost than she thought they were worth), so I don’t consider that Miss J has shown she was tricked about the purpose or destination for the payment. As the provisions in the terms weren’t satisfied, I find it was fair that Chase said Miss J wasn’t entitled to a refund under them. I recognise that Miss J has provided some evidence of poor selling practices by the merchant, and I know she feels she’s been tricked into overpaying, but that scenario isn’t covered for a refund by the terms. The card scheme Chase uses to process payments does have rules that potentially cover this issue of incorrectly charged amounts – but only where that can be evidenced. Miss J unfortunately doesn’t have a receipt or any other proof to show how much the items should have cost versus what she paid, and so she isn’t able satisfy the requirements in the scheme rules for a chargeback claim. That means I find Chase acted fairly when it said it wouldn’t pursue a claim further without supporting evidence, as it was unlikely to succeed. The online reviews Miss J has submitted suggest (though don’t prove) other people were charged incorrectly, but they don’t act as sufficient evidence of what happened with the transaction she’s disputing. Miss J did have to waste some extra time and energy trying to get her complaint raised with Chase – and I appreciate that poor service in connection with the claim would have been frustrating. When considering our published guidance on making awards for distress or inconvenience, and the level of impact Chase’s actions caused her (over and above what would be expected), I think the offer of £75 is fair in the circumstances. So I’ll be directing the bank to pay that to her if it hasn’t already. My final decision I’ve decided J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase doesn’t need to refund the transaction Miss J has disputed, but it should pay her the £75 compensation offered for the service issues.

-- 3 of 4 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss J to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Ryan Miles Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --