American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-6068594

The complaint Mr P complains about the outcome of a claim he made to AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED (“AESEL”) under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Mr P is also unhappy with how they handled the claim. What happened In February 2023, Mr P used his AESEL credit card to order a Nuclear Radiation Detector/Monitor Alarm (“the device”) from an online marketplace. The cost of the order was £169.50. Mr P says, as this is a unique/specialty device, it can only be tested with a gamma radiation source; the most easily accessible of which is at a dentist when having an Xray. Mr P went to his dentist in February 2024, had an Xray, and held the device on the opposite side of his cheek to the Xray machine, as recommended by an online video he’d seen. However, Mr P says the device didn’t go off; he says it should have been screeching. Mr P raised this with the manufacturer, who is based in the USA, who asked him to ship the device to them so they could test it. He then asked the online marketplace to help facilitate the return to the USA, but they declined to accept the device citing health and safety regulations. Mr P says he then raised a claim, under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“s75”) with AESEL in February 2024. But he heard nothing from them. In June 2025, Mr P took the device to his dentist again as he had another appointment with them. He did the same thing as he had done in his previous visit. But Mr P says the device still didn’t work. So, he contacted AESEL about his s75 claim and was surprised to hear them say they hadn’t received any contact from him about this. AESEL subsequently considered the s75 claim but declined it. They said Mr P needed to send in an independent report to show there had been a breach of contract. Mr P referred his complaint to us. Our investigator didn’t think AESEL had handled the s75 unfairly or unreasonably. And he said AESEL couldn’t raise a chargeback for Mr P as the relevant time limits for this had expired. Mr P didn’t agree with our investigator. So, his complaint has been 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. I want to acknowledge that 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 P and AESEL that I’ve reviewed everything on file. And if I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t

-- 1 of 3 --

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 considering whether AESEL – as a provider of financial services – has acted fairly and reasonably in the way it handled Mr P’s requests 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 s75 or raising a chargeback. 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. 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 aren’t met, a chargeback is unlikely to succeed. And something going wrong with a merchant won’t always lead to a successful claim. AESEL didn’t think a chargeback would have had a reasonable prospect of success through the American Express card scheme. I agree with this. The chargeback rules include a requirement of being made within certain time limits. Here, this includes raising a chargeback within 120 days of receipt of the goods or services. However, Mr P didn’t contact AESEL until some time after that period had expired. So, I don’t think Mr P lost out by AESEL not raising a chargeback. Had they tried to do so, it would likely have been defended by the supplier, or their bank, as not being made within the required time limits. So, the chargeback likely would have had no prospect of success. S75 When something goes wrong with goods or services and the payment was made, in part or in whole, with certain types of credit, it might be possible to make a s75 claim. This sets out that, in certain circumstances, the borrower under a credit agreement can make a like claim against the credit provider as they can against the supplier if there’s a breach of contract or misrepresentation. I’m satisfied the necessary technical criteria needed for Mr P to make a s75 claim was met here. I note AESEL hasn’t sought to say otherwise. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 implies certain terms into a contract. In this case it requires the device to be of satisfactory quality when Mr P purchased it. I’ve considered what Mr P has said about the device. He says he tested it twice at his dentist and on both occasions, it didn’t work as it should have. Essentially it should have emitted a loud noise but didn’t. AESEL didn’t uphold the s75 claim because they didn’t think there was enough evidence to show there had been a breach of contract (which here would be that the device wasn’t of satisfactory quality). AESEL felt Mr P needed to have arranged an independent report showing what was wrong with the device and its likely cause. When AESEL considered the claim, they only had Mr P’s verbal testimony about his experience with the device. I can understand why they would have wanted something more

-- 2 of 3 --

specific and detailed about what had happened. And, generally, things like independent reports are a good way for showing what might have happened, and why. An independent report isn’t the only evidence to consider, but in the absence of anything to support Mr P’s verbal testimony about the problem with the device, I don’t think AESEL acted unreasonably in asking for more evidence. I can’t determine on a balance of probabilities whether the device was faulty and why, without some corroborating evidence showing that someone had inspected or tested it, be it someone independent or otherwise. And, while I understand there were potential difficulties in Mr P arranging a report, because of the uniqueness of the device and who would be suitably qualified to test it, it was for Mr P to provide reasonable evidence to AESEL that the device wasn’t of satisfactory quality. I don’t agree that it was for AESEL to have arranged a report or an inspection of the device. I note our investigator went into a lot of detail about how the device works, its technical specifications and online articles that he’d read about it. I don’t need to go into that level of detail on this though, because I haven’t seen sufficient evidence there was anything wrong with the device that would make me think AESEL should have upheld Mr P’s s75 claim. Mr P has said the marketplace breached its terms about returns and the warranty that came with the device. But his claim to AESEL was that he received a device that didn’t work as it should and wasn’t of satisfactory quality. I don’t think the marketplace’s policy on returns or warranties have much relevance to that question. And, as I’ve set out, I don’t think AESEL had enough evidence to agree there had been a breach of contract in relation to the quality of the device. Overall, while I’m sympathetic to the situation and can understand why Mr P decided to pursue the claim and complaint, I don’t think there’s grounds for me to direct AESEL to refund him what he requested. That’s not to say that the device was of satisfactory quality. But from a financial service provider’s perspective, I don’t think AESEL’s answer was unfair. AESEL’s handling of the s75 claim Mr P says he contacted AESEL in February 2024 and heard nothing from them. It seems AESEL told Mr P that he contacted them using an in-box that isn’t frequently monitored by them. Mr P has pointed out that AESEL has encouraged to use that same in-box if he has any queries. It’s possible AESEL did receive Mr P’s initial claim submissions and failed to act on this. But I note also that Mr P said in our complaint form he didn’t follow up on this as he had a lot of other issues to deal with at that time and needed to place lower priority on his dispute. With that in mind and, as I don’t find that AESEL ultimately handled the substance of the s75 claim unreasonably, I don’t think AESEL’s handling of the matter inconvenienced Mr P overall to the extent that I think they need to pay compensation for this. My final decision For the reasons I’ve set out above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Daniel Picken Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --