American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-6258584

The complaint Mr H is unhappy that American Express Services Europe Limited (“AmEx”) wrongly told him that an upgraded account included lounge access, causing him to upgrade and pay a £300 fee he would not otherwise have paid. What happened Mr H holds an AmEx credit card. On 13 June 2025 he contacted AmEx to ask about the benefits of upgrading his account and asked whether the benefits included airport lounge access. In response, AmEx told Mr H that lounge access was an included benefit. Based on that information, Mr H agreed to upgrade and paid the £300 annual fee to do so. On 28 June 2025, Mr H tried to access airport lounges but was refused entry. He then contacted AmEx and was told that the upgraded card doesn’t provide airport lounge access. Mr H says this was disappointing and caused inconvenience for him and his wife. Because of personal circumstances at the time, Mr H didn’t immediately pursue the issue. He contacted AmEx again on 5 August 2025 and raised two complaints. The first was that he’d been given incorrect information about lounge access and had therefore paid for an upgrade he wouldn’t have chosen. The second was that he disagreed with AmEx’s new policy requiring card payments to be made from an account in the primary cardholder’s name. AmEx accepted that their agent had given Mr H incorrect information about that lounge access and offered him 5,000 Avios points as a gesture of goodwill. However, AmEx didn’t agree to refund the £300 fee for the upgrade, and they didn’t uphold Mr H’s complaint about their payment policy, which they said was a commercial decision. Mr H wasn’t satisfied with AmEx’s response and referred his complaint to this service. One of our investigators looked at this complaint. They felt that AmEx’s offer of 5,000 Avios points didn’t provide fair recompense to Mr H for what had happened and recommended that AmEx pay a further £100 compensation to him. Mr H remained dissatisfied and felt that AmEx should be instructed to do more. So, the matter was escalated to an ombudsman for a final decision. 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. I issued a decision on this complaint on 16 March 2026 as follows: It isn’t in dispute that AmEx gave Mr H incorrect information about a key benefit that he specifically asked about. And I feel that it’s more likely than not both that Mr H relied on that incorrect information when agreeing to the upgrade and paying the £300 annual fee, and that had he been given the correct information, he wouldn’t have upgraded his account. Under our rules, Mr H is entitled to be put back in the position he would reasonably have

-- 1 of 4 --

been in if correct information had been given. In this case, that means treating the upgrade as if it hadn’t happened, refunding the fee he paid as a result, and removing any benefits he accrued only because he held the upgraded card. AmEx have confirmed during our investigation that no companion voucher has been issued on the upgraded card. The only benefit Mr H appears to have received that he wouldn’t have had on his previous card was the enhanced Avios earn rate, which resulted in him receiving around 10,000 additional Avios. As such, to restore matters to the correct position, AmEx should downgrade Mr H’s account back to the original level and reimburse the £300 upgrade fee to Mr H, along with 8% interest on that amount calculated from the date the fee was paid until the date the reimbursement is made. AmEx should also remove the incremental Avios from Mr H’s account that he wouldn’t have earned had the account not been upgraded and remove any other upgrade-specific benefits that should not apply to a non-upgraded account. Mr H attempted to use airport lounges on 28 June 2025 and was refused entry. I appreciate this caused inconvenience and disappointment for him and his wife. But if AmEx had provided correct information when Mr H first called them, he still wouldn’t have been entitled to use those lounges. As such, I don’t think that experience caused him a loss that goes beyond the effect of the incorrect advice itself. AmEx offered Mr H 5,000 Avios as a gesture of goodwill shortly after he first raised the issue with them. I think that offer fairly recognises the inconvenience of being misinformed and the time and hassle involved in resolving the matter. In my view, no further compensation is required once the upgrade has been unwound and Mr H has been put back in the position he ought to have been in. So, I think that offer of 5,000 Avios should remain in place. I appreciate that our investigator referenced 50,000 Avios points, but that was incorrect. AmEx have confirmed that they offered 5,000 points, which is the offer they made to Mr H in their response to his complaint, and that offer feels fair to me, given the impact of what happened on Mr H. Mr H also complained about AmEx’s decision to require account payments to be made from an account in the primary cardholder’s name. Businesses are generally entitled to decide how they want to administer payments, provided their terms and conditions allow for it. AmEx have explained that this was a commercial decision and not a regulatory requirement, and I’m satisfied that it’s a decision AmEx are fairly entitled to make. Furthermore, I haven’t seen anything that suggests the policy change was implemented unfairly, or that AmEx acted outside their contractual rights. For these reasons, I don’t think AmEx need to do anything further about this part of the complaint. *** Mr H responded to my provisional decision and raised several objections to it. I’ve considered his points carefully, but they don’t lead me to change the conclusions set out in my provisional decision. Mr H expressed concern that our investigator had, at an earlier stage, referenced an offer of 50,000 Avios, whereas the correct figure was 5,000 Avios. As I noted in my provisional decision, AmEx have confirmed that the gesture of goodwill they offered was 5,000 Avios, not 50,000 – which was the amount of Avios quoted in AmEx’s complaint response to Mr H. I appreciate that the investigator’s error caused confusion. However, I don’t consider that it can reasonably create an entitlement to the higher, incorrect amount. Given the context of

-- 2 of 4 --

the complaint and what I feel was the relatively modest impact of the misinformation at issue, I don’t feel that 50,000 Avios aligns with the scale of AmEx’s mistake. For these reasons, I don’t agree that the error made by our investigator should reasonably require AmEx, who made no mistake, to provide further Avios beyond the 5,000 which they’ve offered and which I feel is fair. Mr H also argued that the consequences of AmEx’s misinformation went beyond the financial loss of the £300 fee. But as I explained, the position he should fairly be in is the one he would have occupied had he been given correct information in June 2025. On that basis, the upgrade should be unwound, the £300 fee refunded with interest, and the upgrade-only benefits removed. It’s not in dispute that Mr H attempted to access airport lounges on 28 June 2025, and was refused entry. And it’s also not in dispute that Mr H was disappointed and upset by the experience. But I can only reiterate that had AmEx had given correct information from the outset, Mr H still wouldn’t have been entitled to lounge access. As such, it isn’t the case that Mr H lost out on anything, but instead that was he given an incorrect expectation. And I feel that the 5,000 Avios points that AmEx have offered Mr H fairly compensates him for the impact of that incorrect expectation, and the trouble that Mr H has experienced surrounding this matter. I also appreciate that Mr H was with his wife at the time. But the AmEx account in question is in Mr H’s sole name. As such, Mr H is the eligible complainant here, and I’m unable to consider any impact on Mr H’s wife, even if she is an additional cardholder on Mr H’s account. Mr H also asked me to reconsider the part of his complaint about AmEx’s policy of requiring payments from an account in the primary cardholder’s name. As I set out previously, businesses are entitled to make commercial decisions of this kind, and I haven’t seen anything to suggest the change was applied in a way that was unfair or outside AmEx’s contractual rights. Nothing in Mr H’s further response changes that assessment. Importantly, it must be confirmed that the remit of this service is to return a complainant to the position they should reasonably be in, had a mistake never occurred. In this instance, I accept Mr H’s statement that if he’d been given correct information, he wouldn’t have upgraded the account. So, the position he should reasonably be in is that his account was never upgrade. That is the resolution I’ve instructed (including 8% interest on the £300 fee to reimbursed), and I’m satisfied that it remains fair. Similarly, I’m satisfied that the 5,000 Avios points offered by AmEx represents fair compensation for the trouble and upset that Mr H has incurred. All of which means that my final decision here is that I uphold this complaint in Mr H’s favour on the basis described in my provisional decision letter. Mr H now has a choice. He can either confirm his acceptance of this final decision, in which case AmEx must comply with the instructions herein. Or, alternatively, he can confirm his non-acceptance, in which case AmEx will be under no compulsion to unwind the account upgrade and Mr H can continue with his upgraded account, with a correct understanding of the benefits it provides. AmEx should not take any action until such time as this service has confirmed to them which choice Mr H has made. I appreciate that this won’t be the outcome Mr H was wanting, but I hope he will understand, given what I’ve explained and the impartial role of this service, why I’ve made the final decision that I have.

-- 3 of 4 --

Putting things right If Mr H formally accepts this decision, AmEx must downgrade Mr H’s account back to the original level and reimburse the £300 upgrade fee to Mr H, along with 8% interest on that amount calculated from the date the fee was paid until the date the reimbursement is made. AmEx should also remove the incremental Avios from Mr H’s account that he wouldn’t have earned had the account not been upgraded and remove any other upgrade-specific benefits that should not apply to a non-upgraded account. Finally, AmEx should credit Mr H’s account with 5,000 Avios, if they haven’t already done so. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited on the basis explained above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Paul Cooper Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --