DRN-6318096

The complaint Mr M has complained about how American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL) responded to a claim for money back in relation to transactions he’d made on his credit card. What happened The circumstances of the complaint are well known so I’m not going to go over everything again in detail. But in summary, in October 2025 Mr M referred a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. He said he wanted the Financial Ombudsman to consider how AESEL had handled two separate chargeback disputes linked to his stay at a hotel abroad. Mr M paid around £2,000 using his AESEL credit card to a booking platform I’ll call “T” for a stay at a hotel abroad, that I’ll call “R”. I understand the booking was for between 29 March 2025 and 10 April 2025. Mr M contacted T shortly into the stay explaining he was having some issues. He said the mattress was uncomfortable and that he’d requested a discount. T looked into things and said R had tried to assist Mr M and offered a room upgrade and a complimentary night and sourced alternative mattress toppers. I understand R said it had offered a spa treatment and meal. T said R had also offered to release the booking without penalty if Mr M decided to leave the hotel and provide a prorated refund. Mr M said R’s offer didn’t resolve things for him. He reiterated the mattress was poor. He said R offered the upgraded room because R was undergoing renovation. He also said there were gaps in the French doors, a broken lock, and air conditioning issues. He said the medical information he received from R on arrival was incorrect and R didn’t understand his dietary requirements. He said the food quality and overall service was poor and highlighted several other things he was unhappy about. He said he’d booked the room early to get a discount and by moving hotels he’d lose the benefit of that, so he requested again a discounted room rate. T broadly said that R had tried to resolve things for Mr M as far as it could. It reiterated the offer to waive the first night room rate. Mr M continued to raise complaints with T and R. R eventually offered Mr M a six-night refund out of 12 along with reward points. Mr M didn’t accept the offer. Alongside the issues in relation to the transaction Mr M made with T, R said Mr M was required to preauthorise a sum on his AESEL credit card when he arrived at the hotel. R said when Mr M left the hotel there were additional expenses for his room which it debited from him totalling around £670, which Mr M didn’t agree with. Mr M put in a claim with AESEL. From what I’ve seen, AESEL raised a dispute with R, but by the point it issued its final response letter AESEL hadn’t refunded Mr M what he was seeking i.e., around £2,700 and the value of the reward points.

-- 1 of 7 --

One of our investigators looked into things and said AESEL fairly didn’t pursue the claim for the transaction with T because the partial refund offer and that Mr M utilised the service. She said Mr M could discuss a claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with AESEL if he wished. She didn’t make any recommendations. Mr M didn’t agree. He said there were two separate transactions that should be considered separately. He said he was willing to pursue a section 75 claim for the transaction with T once the transaction for around £670 was treated separately. He said his complaint was that: • AESEL incorrectly bundled the two transactions together. • Section 75 wasn’t the correct way to claim for the transaction with R. • The transaction with R was disputed because it included items that weren’t received. • In response to his complaint and AESEL’s investigation he said R sent correspondence that it would refund a night’s accommodation, and that this hadn’t been credited. • He wanted AESEL to provide hotel receipts showing records relied upon to support the charge of around £670. He also wanted evidence the one night’s refund had been processed. I issued a provisional decision that said: I want to acknowledge I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – 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 Mr M and AESEL 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’m sorry to hear Mr M didn’t have the experience he wished for on the trip. I know it cost a significant sum, but I thank him for taking the time to bring the complaint. What I need to consider is whether AESEL – as a provider of financial services – has acted fairly and reasonably in the way it handled Mr M’s request for getting money back. It’s important to note AESEL isn’t the supplier. I’ve gone on to think about the specific card protections that are available. In situations like this, AESEL can consider assessing a claim under section 75 or raising a chargeback. The chargeback process provides a way for a card issuer to ask for a payment to be refunded in certain circumstances. The chargeback process is subject to rules made by the relevant card scheme which in this case is American Express. It’s not a guaranteed way of getting money back. While it’s good practice for a card issuer to attempt to chargeback where certain conditions are met and there’s some prospect of success, there are grounds or dispute conditions (including time limits) 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. The thrust of Mr M’s complaint has been in relation to the chargeback disputes. I agree the transactions with R and T are separate and should be treated as such. But I think the issues are all intertwined to some extent. The transaction with R Mr M has said that R was wrong to debit him around £670 because either services on the itemised invoice weren’t received or were billed incorrectly, or that the total bill should’ve been reduced due to offers made by R.

-- 2 of 7 --

AESEL raised the dispute with R for Mr M. I think that was fair of it. R responded to say the charge was valid and provided details of the booking; the authorisation receipt from 29 March 2025; a breakdown of the invoice; the registration form; and a copy of an email from 10 April 2025 where R indicated it would waive the first night’s room rate. On the one hand Mr M has said the bill was wrong and should’ve been discounted. But R has said to AESEL the bill was correct and provided a breakdown. So the evidence is conflicting. While I appreciate there’s difficulties in proving you didn’t receive something, I think there were evidential challenges here for AESEL. The question I need to ask is whether AESEL should’ve taken the dispute further based solely on Mr M’s testimony and limited correspondence provided. On balance, I don’t think it was unfair not to have done so. I’m conscious that the card scheme in this case is American Express. I think AESEL would’ve wanted to be more certain that the bill was incorrect. And I don’t think Mr M showed sufficient evidence the sum should’ve been refunded to the extent Mr M asked for. Mr M said the offer of a night’s refund on 10 April 2025 was retracted by R. I don’t think AESEL were provided definitive evidence for what happened. In any event, it’s possible it was then superseded by the offer of a 6-night refund with reward points that was made in May 2025. Moreover, I don’t think the room refund would’ve applied to the sorts of things on R’s invoice for extra charges. The extra charges were for things like transport; food; and activities. So I think any amendments to the room rate were being dealt with separately because it related to the overall accommodation cost as opposed to the extras that were bought through the course of the stay. Mr M said the invoice with R should’ve been amended because R offered spa treatment and a complimentary meal. But I don’t think AESEL had sufficient evidence to show those weren’t received. The invoice doesn’t have spa treatment costs on there. I think AESEL, or the American Express card scheme, would’ve faced difficulties knowing whether it was received. And even if Mr M didn’t take up the offer or if it was unavailable, I don’t think this necessarily would lead to the sort of supporting evidence required to show an invoice for extra charges ought to be reduced for the purposes of a chargeback claim – because it was meant to be complimentary. Mr M has highlighted a meal on the invoice that he said should’ve been complimentary, but this meal was recorded as being at a different restaurant to the one R said it had offered a complimentary meal for. And for similar reasons to what I’ve said above, if the meal wasn’t used or wasn’t available it’s not clear missing out on the complimentary meal would mean AESEL had sufficient evidence to show the relevant invoice ought to be reduced for the purposes of chargeback. So, again, there were evidential challenges for AESEL. Overall, I don’t think AESEL handled the chargeback unfairly for the transaction with R. And so I’m not going to direct it to take any action for that. For completeness, I don’t think section 75 would’ve been the most appropriate route for this claim either because the items in dispute were under £100 and section 75 applies for breach of contract or misrepresentation where the single item cost more than that and up to £30,000. I don’t think a claim under section 75 would’ve led to a better outcome for Mr M. But I agree AESEL ought to have made that clearer. The transaction with T Mr M booked the accommodation through T. From what I’ve seen, T offers an online platform where customers can book services like accommodation. T carried out the service it offered by booking the accommodation for Mr M. Due to the lack of evidence supplied I’m not totally clear what liability T has for any perceived problems with the accommodation it

-- 3 of 7 --

booked. It appears in Mr M’s case when he raised problems it acted as a middleman and passed the complaint to R for him. From a chargeback perspective, I think AESEL would have had valid concerns that a chargeback raised, through the American Express card scheme, in relation to the service provided may not have had a reasonable prospect of success. There’s a lack of supporting evidence for what Mr M said went wrong; there were offers made by R to resolve things for Mr M, including a price reduction and the ability for Mr M to leave the hotel without penalty; Mr M utilised the service, and so he wouldn’t have been able to claim for the unused portion of it; there was a lack of supporting evidence to show the service, albeit from R, wasn’t provided or was defective, so I think T (or indeed R) may have had grounds to defend the chargeback on that basis. Alternatively, T may have sought to defend on the basis that it provided the service it had agreed to by making the booking and acting as a middleman for the complaints. Taking everything into account, I don’t think AESEL saw enough to determine that it should have refunded Mr M everything he’d paid, as he’d sought. In relation to Mr M saying he’d not received a refund for the room rate, I’m conscious that offers were made by R which Mr M wasn’t happy with. I’m also not persuaded Mr M would’ve been able to raise a valid claim for along the lines of credit not processed with a chargeback against T because it’s not clear T itself promised to refund Mr M something he agreed to and hasn’t received. I can’t see AESEL has considered a section 75 claim for Mr M in relation to the transaction with T. And AESEL’s handling of a section 75 claim for the transaction with T isn’t the thrust of his complaint. So I’m not going to make findings on that. I don’t know if the necessary conditions exist for a section 75 claim to be considered against T where the alleged problems seem to stem from R, but I’ll leave it to Mr M to decide if he wishes to pursue the claim further as he’s indicated.

-- 4 of 7 --

AESEL’s handling AESEL said the initial dispute Mr M raised was in relation to the transaction with R. It raised the claim on that basis, which I think was fair. But AESEL has also referred to the offers made by R, which I think are in relation to the total cost of the accommodation he paid through T. And Mr M has said he was unhappy with the situation as a whole. So I agree there’s a bit of confusion here. It’s complicated slightly because of the different parties involved. I’ve not seen all the communication, but based on what Mr M has said, AESEL perhaps could’ve been clearer in its communication and when setting out what was happening overall in its final response letter. After the initial claim with R wasn’t pursued further based on its response, it seems like AESEL requested information from Mr M to support a section 75 claim but it didn’t receive what it needed, which is why it didn’t pursue things further. While some of the communication could have been clearer, I think AESEL did take steps to try to help, and I’ve not seen that the way it acted prejudiced the chargeback claims it could have considered. I don’t think there were grounds to pursue the claim with R through section 75. And as I said, Mr M may still decide to refer his section 75 claim with T to AESEL. I’m not planning on directing AESEL to take action in relation to the way it handled the claims. For the avoidance of doubt – that’s in relation to the chargebacks against T and R, and the section 75 claim with R only. If either party feels I’ve misunderstood something, they can let me know in response to this provisional decision, with supporting evidence. Overall, I’m sorry to hear Mr M was unhappy with the trip. I can also understand why he was unhappy if he perceived that AESEL was bundling his claims together. But I don’t find I have the grounds to direct AESEL to repay him what he’s seeking. I can’t see we received a response from AESEL. Mr M responded to say, in summary, he agreed section 75 wasn’t the appropriate route for the claim. He said AESEL took too long to investigate. He said AESEL didn’t carry out a proper investigation with regards to the charges he disputed with R. He said no signed receipts or supporting records were produced. He said the sum charged by R was incorrect and that food charges should have benefited from a 20% discount and not 10%. He said he was seeking repayment of the incorrect amounts, not a full refund. He said he wasn’t aware R had withdrawn its one-night room rate refund offer. He said the matter has been ongoing for a long time and it’s taken a lot of effort to pursue. Mr M also wanted to know what information is on file, and whether it included details of the April communication about the waiver of the one-night room rate; material showing a 20% discount should be applied; his summary of the charges; and any supporting evidence for the disputed charges. 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’d like to thank Mr M for his response. I’ll focus on the chargeback with R dispute, in line with Mr M’s response.

-- 5 of 7 --

Mr M hasn’t provided anything materially new for me to consider so I’m not going to depart from the conclusions I reached in my provisional decision. I’d like to reassure Mr M that I’ve reviewed everything he’s supplied, along with the information from AESEL, which I’ve described. The only items on his list that I don’t have is the supporting evidence such as the signed receipts he’s mentioned, which I’ll come on to again later. But everything else he’s mentioned has been reviewed. I find I have enough information to be able to decide the complaint at this stage because I’m focussing on AESEL’s handling of the claim at the time, based on what it had available, which I’ve reviewed. And it’s important to highlight again that I’m required to do that quickly and with minimum formality. While I appreciate Mr M is saying he’s seeking repayment of incorrect amounts, he said in his complaint form he was asking the Financial Ombudsman to direct AESEL to fully refund him the cost of the accommodation and the charges applied by R, as well as directing reward points were credited or a cash equivalent, along with compensation. I explained why I didn’t think there were grounds to direct AESEL to do that. With regards to the chargeback claim for the transaction with R, I think it’s important to highlight AESEL’s role in that was to consider the evidence presented by Mr M and then decide whether to raise the chargeback initially based on that, which it did, and I thought that was fair. R defended the chargeback and provided a list of the items charged to Mr M, which I think is likely in line with what accommodation providers would supply in these sorts of situations. AESEL had to decide whether to pursue the chargeback further – through the American Express card scheme, but it didn’t do so. I needed to decide whether that was fair. Mr M was seeking a full refund, but I didn’t think AESEL was provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate why that would likely have succeeded if it had pursued the case to arbitration. I think the chargeback process is reliant on evidence supplied, which in this case was conflicting. On the one hand, Mr M says the ‘extra charges’ bill was wrong, and certain discounts or offers should’ve been used to offset charges, meaning he didn’t owe anything. But on the other hand, R said Mr M authorised the transaction and provided a breakdown of the charges, most of which Mr M recognised. I don’t think AESEL was provided enough evidence to demonstrate the billing was wrong with regards to the discounts or complimentary offers. I’ve explained why I think the extra charges dispute could fairly be dealt with separately to the part of the dispute Mr M was having in relation to money back for the overall accommodation cost he was claiming. I also explained I didn’t think AESEL was provided definitive evidence for what had happened with regards to the initial room rate offers. I do take Mr M’s point that R didn’t provide individual signed receipts or equivalent supporting records for each individual charge, which would have been helpful. It decided to provide the summary of all the charges it said were incurred and it showed the money was taken as a result of Mr M’s pre-authorisation. Mr M acknowledged most of the charges, many of which were specifically recorded under his room number. So I’m not sure signed receipts would have been required for every item. There was one transport charge for around £10 (current GBP equivalent), and one for around £20 he said he didn’t recognise at all. And there were a few other items he said he thought the charged amount was wrong. I’ve explained why I don’t think the chargeback would have succeeded in relation to value of the complimentary offers. And the 20% discount corrections Mr M highlighted for the food together totalled around £15. But, again, the evidence wasn’t as clear as I think it needed to have been for a successful chargeback, even if the billing discrepancies value was pursued on its own.

-- 6 of 7 --

It’s of course possible there was a mistake in R’s calculations. I’m not saying something definitely didn’t go wrong. And as I said in my provisional decision, sometimes things going wrong with a merchant won’t always lead to a successful chargeback. AESEL decided there wasn’t a reasonable prospect of success in pursuing the full refund further, ultimately to the American Express arbitration. Having looked at all the evidence supplied, even though I think there were opportunities for AESEL to have handled some aspects better, I think it responded with in a reasonable time and it fairly would have wanted to be more certain the claim Mr M raised with R would have had a reasonable prospect of success by pursuing it further. Overall, I don’t think there’s grounds for me to direct AESEL to refund him either in full or for the specific alleged losses he highlighted in his testimony. But even if I’m wrong on that, or even if AESEL should have made more attempts to pursue the specific value for items on the bill Mr M thought were incorrect, I do have to bear in mind that there was a significant discount offered by R which arguably could fairly have offset these perceived billing errors or discrepancies. Taking everything into account, while I’m sorry to hear Mr M is unhappy, I’m not going to direct AESEL to take any further action. My final decision Mr final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Simon Wingfield Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --