American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-6266212

The complaint Mr B has complained about how American Express Services Europe Limited (AMEX) dealt with his request for a refund. What happened In June 2025, a secondary cardholder on Mr B’s AMEX credit card account, made a payment of around £350 to an online booking platform for accommodation. Mr B explained that during the stay at the accommodation he experienced various issues which were not resolved and that the property was not as described. He was offered a 20% discount on a future stay by the property owner and has confirmed he received around £100 in travel credit from the booking platform. Unhappy with this, he asked AMEX to assist him in getting a refund. AMEX considered a chargeback and Mr B said he was provided with a temporary credit for the disputed transaction amount, which was later reversed, so Mr B asked AMEX to reconsider. In August 2025, AMEX wrote to Mr B and explained that the necessary criteria had not been met for Mr B to have a valid Section 75 claim, as set out in Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). It said the necessary debtor, creditor, supplier (DCS) agreement was not in place, because the transaction was completed by a supplementary cardholder, and not Mr B himself, and as such Mr B was not a contracting party with the supplier. It also noted that the booking confirmation was in the supplementary cardholder’s name and so it said he was the contracting party with the supplier, not Mr B. It also said there was no evidence that the contract had been breached with the booking platform, noting their terms and conditions sets out it was not a contractual party to the contract for the supply of the accommodation and couldn’t guarantee the accuracy of the information provided by the service providers. Mr B raised a complaint about the outcome of his Section 75 claim. AMEX reconfirmed its position and said AMEX had not made an error and therefore it was unable to uphold the complaint. Unhappy with this response, Mr B referred his complaint to this service for an independent opinion. One of our Investigators looked into the complaint and she said she didn’t think AMEX had treated Mr B unfairly. She said she didn’t think the necessary DCS agreement was in place for a valid Section 75 claim, because Mr B did not book the accommodation, another name was on the booking confirmation and as such Mr B was not a party to the contract. She also thought that as payment was made to the booking platform and not the accommodation provider, it further complicated matters. She also said that in any event, she didn’t think the booking platform had breached its contract, as it had fulfilled its contractual role by facilitating the booking. Mr B didn’t agree. He said that he had stayed at the accommodation and was named as a guest on the booking. He said that the booking platform was responsible for the booking

-- 1 of 3 --

and assisting customers. As such he felt the necessary DCS agreement was in place. Mr B provided additional evidence to show he stayed at the property. Our Investigator reconsidered and explained that her opinion remained the same. She said she had not seen evidence to show that the accommodation provider was aware the booking or payment was made on behalf of the main account holder, as the booking confirmation showed the supplementary cardholder as the guest. She acknowledged the evidence to show Mr B stayed at the accommodation, but said this did not establish a contractual link between the main cardholder and the supplier, which was required for a section 75 claim. Mr B still didn’t agree and so the complaint was passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision explaining that I intended to reach the same outcome as our Investigator and provided more detail. In that I said: “I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’m aware I’ve summarised the events of the complaint to some degree. 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 B 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. To be clear I am only determining whether AMEX treated Mr B fairly in how it handled the dispute, and not the actions of the booking platform, or accommodation provider, as the actions of those firms do not fall within this services remit. Whilst there may have been issues, it doesn’t necessarily mean that AMEX treated Mr B unfairly. There were two ways in which AMEX could potentially assist Mr B in getting a refund for the transaction, either a chargeback or a Section 75 claim. I’ve considered each in turn. Chargeback There are set rules and criteria under which AMEX would need to follow as part of the chargeback process. Part of these rules set out the situations in which a chargeback can be raised in the form of reason codes, along with specific criteria, including timescales for each code. A chargeback isn’t an automatic right for consumers and in Mr B’s circumstances AMEX had discretion to decide whether to attempt it or not. I don’t have all the information I’d like regarding the chargeback, but what is clear is that the chargeback was unsuccessful and so I’ve thought about whether AMEX treated Mr B fairly. Whilst it’s clear that there were issues with the accommodation, Mr B has confirmed he remained at the property for the duration of the booking. In addition he confirmed he received a partial refund by way of a booking credit. As such, I’m not persuaded that the chargeback had a good prospect of succeeding, had AMEX pursued it further. So I’m not persuaded that Mr B has lost out as a result. Section 75 In certain circumstances, Mr B can make a like claim against AMEX for any breaches of contract or misrepresentations by the supplier of goods or services, when payment is made via credit card. This is through a Section 75 claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

In order to say that AMEX treated Mr B unfairly in how it handled his claim, I’d need to be satisfied that the necessary criteria had been met and if so, that a breach of contract or misrepresentation had been evidenced. One of those criteria is that there needs to be a valid agreement between the debtor, the creditor and the supplier, as set out within the CCA. The agreement required is that the person who paid for the services subject to the contract, should have a contractual relationship with the company who supplied the services as well as with the credit provider. Having reviewed the information provided, it’s clear that a secondary cardholder made the payment and the booking was in their name, as per the booking confirmation. It’s not in dispute here that Mr B also stayed at the accommodation, but I’ve not seen that he was the person who had a contractual agreement either with the booking platform or the accommodation provider. As I don’t think that Mr B had the necessary contractual agreement with the supplier for there to be a valid claim under section 75, I’m not persuaded that AMEX treated Mr B unfairly by declining his claim on this basis. Overall, I’m not persuaded that AMEX treated Mr B unfairly in how it handled the chargeback or Section 75 claim. It follows that I do not intend to ask AMEX to do anything more.” Mr B didn’t respond and AMEX didn’t provide any new information. As the deadline for a response has now passed, the complaint has been passed back 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. As neither party has provided any further information, I see no reason to depart from the conclusions reached in my provisional decision. It follows then my final decision is the same as my provisional decision above. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Daniella Roberts Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --