American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-6056610

The complaint Miss I complains about American Express Services Europe Limited’s (“Amex”) handling of a claim she made to get her money back from a retailer. What happened In April 2025, Miss I used her credit card account with Amex to book and pay for one night of accommodation overseas. She also used the same account to book a subsequent night’s stay in a different city. After checking her account, Miss I says she noticed she’d been charged for more nights of accommodation than she had expected. So, she raised her concerns with Amex. To start their review, Amex placed a temporary refund on Miss I’s account for the two separate transactions, relating to the two different hotel stays. Amex also refunded the interest to Miss I’s account. Following Amex’s review, the hotels involved defended Miss I’s claim that she hadn’t received the accommodation she had paid for. So, Amex reversed the temporary refund. This meant the cost of the hotel stays were debited from Miss I’s credit card account. Miss I complained to Amex and said they hadn’t warned her this could happen. She said the steps taken by Amex were unfair and caused her financial and personal difficulties. In their final response to Miss I’s complaint, Amex apologised for not warning Miss I that the refunds were only temporary, during an online chat function. Although Amex said subsequent warnings were sent to Miss I in an email, they agreed to credit her account with £75 in light of the distress she had encountered. Miss I didn’t accept Amex’s response and brought her complaint to this service. One of our investigators looked into Miss I’s complaint and found that Amex had treated Miss I fairly. He said Amex had correctly considered a chargeback claim and appropriately warned Miss I that the refunded amounts were temporary, rather than a permanent solution. The investigator thought Amex could have looked at a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Section 75). But, he didn’t think that would have succeeded, as the hotel stays were provided to Miss I. Overall, the investigator said the compensation payment made to Miss I by Amex was fair in the circumstances. Miss I didn’t agree with the investigator’s findings and said her holiday was ruined because of Amex’s poor communication. She also said Amex had confused the matter, by refunding the interest accrued by the transactions she had disputed. The investigator didn’t change his conclusions and Miss I’s complaint has now been passed to me to make a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 4 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I want to acknowledge where I’ve summarised the events of Miss I’s complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this, as it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I’m required to decide matters quickly and with minimum formality. But I want to assure Miss I and Amex 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’d also like Miss I to know that I empathise with the position she has found herself in. I’m aware of the sums she’s paid for the hotel stays and the reasons for wanting that money back. What I need to consider is whether Amex, as a provider of financial services, has acted fairly and reasonably in the way they handled Miss I’s request for getting her money refunded. It’s important to note Amex isn’t the supplier of the services Miss I contracted with the hotels for. So, I’ve gone on to think about the specific card protections that are available. In situations like this, Amex can consider assessing a claim under Section 75 or by raising a chargeback enquiry. The chargeback enquiry The chargeback process provides a way for a card issuer to ask for a payment to be refunded in certain circumstances. A chargeback claim is subject to rules made by the relevant card scheme. It’s not a guaranteed way of getting money back. While it’s good practice for a card issuer to attempt a chargeback where certain conditions are met and there’s some prospect of success, there are grounds or dispute conditions set by the relevant card scheme that need to be considered. If these are not met, a chargeback is unlikely to succeed. And something going wrong with a merchant won’t always lead to a successful claim. In Miss I’s case, Amex is the card scheme and the card issuer. After looking at Amex’s records, I can see where Miss I initially complained that she didn’t stay at the first hotel. I can also see that later in the complaint, Miss I indicates she did receive the accommodation she had booked. Furthermore, I can see from the history of the credit card account, where several mirroring reservations were made, to try and book the first hotel. These were later cleared from Miss I’s account. Regardless of Miss I’s reasons for the disputed transactions, I can see from Amex’s records that only two have ever debited her account, for the two separate hotel stays. So, it was these transactions that rightly formed part of the chargeback enquiry. During Amex’s review, I can see where each hotel defended the attempt by Amex to get Miss I her money back. And later in the complaint, I can see where Amex spoke to a representative of both hotels, who each provided confirmation of Miss I’s stays. With this in mind, I think Amex were correct to conclude that the chargeback enquiries didn’t have a prospect of succeeding. But, the crux of Miss I’s complaint is that she says Amex caused her difficulties, because they didn’t warn her the refunds were temporary. So, I’ve gone on to consider this point further. Having looked at the online chat function used by Miss I when she raised her dispute, I can see where she wasn’t told the refunded amounts could be taken back by Amex. On the face

-- 2 of 4 --

of it, I accept it was unfair of Amex to not have said something about the nature of the refunds in that chat. Nonetheless, I can also see that on the same day as Miss I raised her dispute, Amex sent two emails to Miss I’s correct email address. The emails covered each transaction and in the body of the text, it says: “Please keep in mind that if the merchant does send us documentation to support the charge at a later date, we may reverse the credit applied on your account.” Against this background, I think Amex gave Miss I the information she needed about the temporary nature of the refunds. I also think Amex provided this information promptly. Miss I has said that in refunding the interest, Amex caused further confusion. While I agree that Amex had given Miss I hope that her claim would be progressed, I don’t think Amex unfairly gave her the expectation that it would succeed without question. Afterall, the chargeback process is there to give each side of a dispute a chance to have their say. Having considered everything, I think Amex gave Miss I the important information she needed about the refunds and the chargeback process. I can see where Amex may have given more detail in the online chat function, but I think the subsequent emails gave Miss I that clarity. Amex have paid £75 to Miss I’s account and I think that’s a fair reflection of the confusion they may have caused, when Miss I first raised her dispute. The possible Section 75 claim Section 75 is a statutory protection that enables Miss I to make a like claim against Amex. The claim can be for breach of contract or misrepresentation by a supplier, paid by a credit card in respect of an agreement they had with her for the provision of goods or services. But, there are certain conditions that need to be met for Section 75 to apply. I think the conditions existed for Amex to have started a section 75 claim. And I agree with the investigator, in that Amex are the experts here and should have guided Miss I more thoroughly. However, I also share the investigator’s view that a Section 75 claim in these circumstances would have been declined. This is because Miss I received the services from each hotel, so there isn’t any claim or evidence of a breach of contract, or misrepresentation by the suppliers. That means a like claim against Amex is not likely to have succeeded, based on the evidence we have. Summary Overall, I’m satisfied that Amex treated Miss I fairly in their handling of the chargeback enquiries she made to them in April 2025. Although I think Amex could have helped Miss I more with talking about a Section 75 claim, I think it’s unlikely Amex would have upheld it. In all the circumstances, I agree that Amex caused a slight delay in telling Miss I about the temporary nature of the refunds. But, I think Amex’s solution to pay £75 to Miss I’s credit card account is fair and reasonable, in light of the distress and inconvenience she’s told us about. So, I don’t require Amex to take any further steps to settle Miss I’s complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Miss I’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss I to accept or

-- 3 of 4 --

reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Sam Wedderburn Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --