Introduction
If you are a customer of Ripple Energy’s failed Project 4 (“Whitelaw Brae”) and wish to make a chargeback or Section 75 claim via your debit or credit card due to the non-delivery of services that should have been provided by Ripple Energy Limited, please consider following the steps outlined below. These steps are not comprehensive and there will be differences for each bank. These steps are written to help you prepare and navigate the process, as informed by members’ experience to date.
Disclaimer
The information provided is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, legal or professional advice. You should undertake your own research and/or consult with a qualified professional before making decisions based on this information.
Step-by-Step Guide to Claiming a Chargeback or Section 75 claim
- Determine if you paid for the transaction by credit or debit card.
- If you paid for the transaction by credit card, you should have more legal protection with Section 75 as it is enshrined in law and credit card providers have to follow it. If you paid for the transaction by debit card, the chargeback scheme is a voluntary agreement. Note that the chargeback scheme under Visa and Mastercard are slightly different when the detailed rules are considered, which may have an impact on your experience in seeking a chargeback. Further, each bank may interpret the chargeback schemes differently per their own internal guidance.
- Under Section 75, there is a limit on purchases between the value of £100 and £30,000. Under the chargeback scheme, you can claim for any amount.
- There is no time limit with Section 75. Chargeback scheme claims must be made within 120 days of your purchase or payment for service or when you were due to receive the goods or services.
- It may be reasonable to argue your chargeback claim time limit starts from when the service is due to be delivered – i.e., when you would have expected the wind farm to be operating and renewable energy to be supplied to your property.
- More information may be found here: https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/our-expertise/cards/chargeback-and-section-75
- Review your bank’ Section 75/ chargeback policy
- Check your bank’s website or contact customer service to understand their specific chargeback procedures, time limits, and documentation requirements. Each bank will vary their procedure slightly.
- Collect all supporting documents, including:
- Receipts or invoices for the transaction in question
- The Ripple Energy website no longer exists. It is not possible to retrieve documents specific to individual accounts at this time. You may have emails from Ripple Energy – see below and project documents are available – see below.
- Receipts for debit and credit card payments will have previously been sent by email from Ripple via a “@stripe.com” address.
- Bank statements showing the transaction(s)
- Bank statements can be requested for a significant amount of time after an account is closed. Contact your bank if you do not have statements.
- Any correspondence with Ripple Energy (emails, messages, etc.)
- Project related documents from https://coop4.uk/documents
- Customer Agreement (generic version without schedule 1 containing your name)
- Appointment of Administrator
- Whitelaw Brae Share Offer
- Ripple Dashboard – Project Timeline
- Receipts or invoices for the transaction in question
- Proof of attempt to resolve the issue directly with the administrators of Ripple Energy Limited
- An email sent to [email protected] should satisfy this requirement.
- Initiate the claim with your bank, building society or credit provider
- Log in to your online banking platform, visit a branch, or call your bank’s customer service. Inform them you wish to dispute a transaction and request a Section 75 claim if you paid using a credit card or a chargeback if you paid by debit card.
- Provide the bank with all necessary details, such as:
- Date and amount of the transactions to Ripple Energy Limited
- Merchant name: Ripple Energy Limited
- Date of Insolvency: 17/03/2025
- Insolvency practitioner: Begbies Traynor
- Reason for the chargeback which may include:
- Non delivery of services, namely the supply of wattage purchased as displayed on receipts
- Breach of contract due to the numerous instances of clauses that detail return of funds if the project were not to proceed
- Funds not reaching the intended recipient (Ripple Coop 4 Limited)
- Other concerns relating to the execution of the Customer Agreement, for example the sale of the site to Thrive Renewables in December 2024. This renders the project non-viable by Ripple.
- All supporting evidence gathered earlier
- Keep records of all communications with the bank, including reference numbers, names of staff spoken to, and dates. Follow up regularly to check the status of your claim.
- Your bank might request additional information or clarification. Respond promptly to avoid delays.
- Await the final outcome
- You may be provisionally given a refund. This will usually come with advice from your bank that this can be challenged and reclaimed by the merchant.
- Until you receive full and final settlement of your chargeback claim, the money can be reclaimed by the merchant.
- The bank will investigate and inform you of their decision. If successful, the disputed funds should be returned to your account.
- If unsuccessful, you can ask for further review/ appeal or escalate the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Escalations to the FOS typically require a final dispute outcome letter from the bank, alternatively, if this is not forthcoming, inform the bank you are escalating the dispute to the FOS. Complaints to the FOS need to take place within 6 months of the dispute being raised.
Additional Considerations
- Act quickly – there are strict time limits for raising a chargeback.
- Time is currently on your side as the service was due to be delivered in “winter 2026/2027”
- The clock starts ticking from the date of the missed delivery.
- Be clear and concise in all your communications.
- Keep copies of everything you send or receive.
- Be ready for a challenge to your claim by providing as much detail to your bank early on to allow them to handle the challenge on your behalf.
- For example, the bank may challenge by suggesting you are out of the time limit for raising a section 75 or chargeback claim (see above); that they consider the transaction to be out of scope for a chargeback (e.g., as an investment).
- Some customers of Ripple Energy’s Project 4 have chosen to track their experience with their bank on the community spreadsheet available at https://coop4.uk/s75
- Bank-specific community chats are available at https://coop4.uk/whatsapp. Please note that there is a cap on the number of members that we can have in these groups, so if the group is full please try again later.
- After joining the relevant groups, navigate to ‘Group Info’ and look through the ‘Media, links and docs’ tab before asking the group for guidance, documents. It is also useful to scroll through the history and use the key word search function to find out what has been shared to date.
Anticipated Challenges specific to Chase, Starling & Revolut
- Revolut customers have reported that some claims have been refused on the basis of being out of the time limit.
- Argument: The wattage ordered was due to start delivery from winter 2026/2027, hence the time limit should start from then rather than when the transaction was paid for.
- Chase (J.P. Morgan Europe Limited is their official trading name) and Starling customers have reported that claims have been refused on the basis that the transactions were for investments, which are out of scope for under Mastercard chargeback rules.
- Argument: The transaction is not an investment. In the case of Chase, cashback was provided in relation to the transaction. Cashback, per Chase policies, is excluded for transactions relating to investments. This contradicts their policies relating to Mastercard chargebacks.
- Further, Ripple’s website used to reference the following – that Ripple’s model is not an investment vehicle. Similar statements are prominently featured in the Share Offer document
- Even if classified as an investment, members are arguing that our funds never reached the intended recipient (Ripple Coop 4 Limited) and should be allowed a chargeback under Mastercard rules.
- There has been at least one instance where a member has had their £25 reservation fee refunded by Chase (source: Chase sub-channel in WhatsApp – member going by ‘Sam’ on 9th September 2025 18:05hrs). Others have had this refused alongside the other funds that were assigned to wattage (source: Chase sub-channel in WhatsApp chat)
- Some customers have since escalated their complaints to the FOS.
- Argument: The transaction is not an investment. In the case of Chase, cashback was provided in relation to the transaction. Cashback, per Chase policies, is excluded for transactions relating to investments. This contradicts their policies relating to Mastercard chargebacks.
Escalating to the FOS and other avenues
- Complaints to the FOS should be made via their official website – https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/make-complaint
- Ensure you have all the documentation that was shared with the bank under the dispute process, along with correspondence from the bank, in particular a final dispute outcome letter.
- Some members received a swift response from the FOS after submitting their complaint asking the member to accept a token credit from the bank to close the complaint, with language suggesting that they are likely to agree with the bank given what they have read to date but not investigated. You can accept this offer or reject it and request an investigation be carried out as some members have done.
- September 2025 status: Some members have received a response that states that the FOS appears to be taking a more coordinated approach in considering cases relating to chargebacks for Ripple Energy so it may take a little longer to hear back about complaints. However, there have been at least 2 instances where FOS has responded, siding with Chase and some members have requested that these be escalated to a senior ombudsman for further review. There has also been one instance relating to Revolut, albeit for a time limit issue, not whether the transaction should be regarded as an investment, where the outcome has been positive.
- Revolut outcome/ letter highlights re refusal to chargeback owing to time limit. Note that there was no explicit discussion on whether the transaction is an investment or not but there was a point that may be helpful – see last sub-bullet (source: Revolut & Chase sub-channel in WhatsApp chat) – statements from FOS investigator re a specific member’s claim where a full refund to cover the payments made + 8% simple yearly interest on the refunded amounts from the date of payment until the date of settlement + £100 for distress and inconvenience caused:
- A chargeback is a process by which payment settlement disputes are resolved between card issuers and retailers, under relevant card scheme rules. The card issuer in some circumstances can ask for a transaction to be reversed if there’s a problem with the goods or services supplied by the retailer. But the chargeback process doesn’t give consumers legal rights, and it isn’t guaranteed to result in a refund.
- The Financial Ombudsman Service can’t interfere in the outcome of a chargeback which has been decided by the card scheme or challenge the card scheme on how to run their scheme – we (they) can only comment on the actions of Revolut Ltd (the bank) and whether it attempted to carry out the chargeback process correctly.
- Mastercard rules do set a 120-day limit but importantly, the starting point of that limit is not always the date of transaction. In cases involving the services not provided, Mastercard makes it clear that 120-day period runs from the later of expected date of service or the date the cardholder became aware (or should reasonably have become aware) that the service would not be provided. There is also a maximum cap of 540 days from the transaction date.
- In this instance, the service (member) paid for, wasn’t due to be provided until Winter 2026/27, and it only became apparent in March 2025 when the merchant entered administration that the service would not be provided at all. So, this is the relevant event from which the 120-day period should be measured.
- Revolut outcome/ letter highlights re refusal to chargeback owing to time limit. Note that there was no explicit discussion on whether the transaction is an investment or not but there was a point that may be helpful – see last sub-bullet (source: Revolut & Chase sub-channel in WhatsApp chat) – statements from FOS investigator re a specific member’s claim where a full refund to cover the payments made + 8% simple yearly interest on the refunded amounts from the date of payment until the date of settlement + £100 for distress and inconvenience caused:
- Other members have also complained to their MPs
- Paul Kohler MP has been in touch to find out more and for permission to contact FOS.
- Andrew Griffin MP has raised concerns about Ripple Energy and community-based companies with Baroness Curran, Minister of State, Energy Security and Net Zero on 5th August (Ref AG36110/LP).
- This matter has also received media attention:
Conclusion
By following these steps, affected customers of Ripple Energy Limited can efficiently initiate and manage a chargeback request with their bank. Always check the specific requirements of your financial institution, as procedures may differ slightly. Good luck!