American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-6223391

The complaint Mr O in unhappy with how American Express Services Europe Limited (‘Amex’) handled a dispute he raised with it following transactions on his credit card account. What happened The background to this complaint and my initial conclusions were set out in my provisional decision. I said: “In February 2025, Mr O purchased flights with a booking agent I’ll call ‘K’. The total cost was £454.85. Following this Mr O has explained he noticed hie credit card account had been charged the £454.85 twice. Mr O tried to resolve this double charge with both K and the airline the flights were with but wasn’t able to get a refund. Mr O therefore also raised a dispute with Amex. On 10 April 2025, Amex explained it had reached out to the merchant (via raising a chargeback) and given what it had provided, the charge of £454.85 would be reapplied to Mr O’s account. Mr O responded and asked for a complaint to be logged. He said in summary that Amex handled the dispute poorly, failed to uphold section 75 of the Consumer Credit act 1974 (CCA) and had demonstrated a lack of Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) enforcement. Amex advised on 14 May 2025 that details of the case had been shared with its team that handles section 75 claims. Amex issued its response to the complaint on 22 May 2025. In this it said it repeated it had transferred the claim to its section 75 team as the dispute handling team was unable to reach a resolution with the merchant due to internal policies. At the end of May 2025, Mr O was able to get a refund from K. This was advised to Amex on 8 June 2025 where Mr O also expressed his unhappiness with the response he’d received to his complaint. Given a refund had now been applied, Amex closed the section 75 claim it had raised and said it had already answered the complaint and was aware Mr O intended to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Mr O did this and the complaint was passed to one of our investigators to consider. He investigator upheld the complaint and recommended Amex pay Mr O £150. This was for the distress and inconvenience that had been caused by Amex’s handling of the chargeback. Namely that the chargeback defence didn’t address the issue of the duplicate billing and Amex had created duplicate references and then despite advising otherwise, continue to use the duplicate reference causing confusion. Amex accepted the investigators recommendation, but Mr O said the issue around the absence of SCA enforcement hadn’t been addressed. Given this Mr O asked for an ombudsman to consider the complaint. The complaint was therefore passed to me to decide. Given what Mr O had raised about the lack of SCA being applied on his two transactions and the impact this had had on the handling of his dispute, I reached out to ask Amex for more information about the authorisation of the two transactions in question. Amex explained neither transaction in this case was verified via one-time passcode or safekey validation methods. I asked why Mr O wasn’t refunded sooner if the second payment wasn’t authorised in this case. Amex acknowledged that unfortunately the refund did take longer than was perhaps necessary.

-- 1 of 3 --

What I’ve provisionally decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint. I would like to point out I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. It seems that Mr O accepts the investigator’s recommendation that Amex pay him £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its mishandling of his chargeback. However, he feels Amex also failed to apply SCA breaches its obligations under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs) and that needs to be considered. I don’t believe I need to add anything further from the findings made by the investigator regarding the chargeback. I agree the defence that was sent by the merchant isn’t robust and doesn’t really address the issue of what appears to be a duplicate booking (given the transactions occurred 13 seconds apart). Had this been pursued further it’s possible Mr O would’ve been refunded sooner and without the need for a referral to the section 75 team and the further submissions that required. Mr O was given different references, told one would be closed and the investigation would continue under a new one, only to then receive further communication on the original reference. I can understand why he found the communication he received from Amex confusing. I’ve therefore gone on to consider whether more compensation should be due when looking at the issue Mr O raised regarding Amex’s failure to apply SCA to his online transactions with K, as set out in article 100 of the PSR’s, In the additional information supplied by Amex, it has explained that neither of Mr O’s transactions here were verified through safekey/one-time passcodes. We do see many transactions that do not require SCA, so it doesn’t automatically mean that transactions have to be processed in that way. It’s not the role of this service to fine or punish a business for any possible regulation breaches. Mr O is free to raise his issues with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) who regulate the industry should he wish. That’s something for him to decide. What I can look at here is whether Mr O could’ve been refunded sooner and what impact that had on him. Given the evidence, it doesn’t seem to be disputed the duplicated transaction wasn’t subject to SCA. So, I do think that when this was raised by Mr O, Amex likely could’ve ensured a refund was processed sooner. I note it has acknowledged this to me. That not happening meant Mr O had to spend a significant amount of time with Amex, K and the airline to try and get the refund he was ultimately entitled to. Mr O has advised this included submissions, his own investigations and escalation all adding to the distress and inconvenience caused. There is no evidence that Mr O authorised two transactions, and I do feel that Amex had ample opportunity to ensure Mr O received his refund sooner than it did. In not doing so I can understand why Mr O became more and more concerned he may not be refunded at all. This worry is in addition to all the work he has shown he did to evidence why he was due a refund of the £454.82, which is not an insignificant amount of money. So overall I don’t believe he was treated fairly by Amex with regards to the dispute his raised with it. Taking everything into consideration, I believe Amex should pay more than the £150 the investigator recommended. I don’t believe this fairly reflects the level of distress and inconvenience caused. I feel a total of £250 would be reasonable given the circumstances of this complaint.” I invited both parties to respond with new information they wanted me to consider before I

-- 2 of 3 --

made my final decision. Amex accepted my recommendation. Mr O also accepted but said my provisional decision contained an inaccuracy. This being that I said he had seemed to accept the investigators recommendation that Amex pay him £150. Mr O said he didn’t accept this and had rejected the recommendation because he didn’t feel the investigation into his complaint was complete. I wanted to clarify that Mr O did not accept the investigators findings. This is noted in my provisional decision where I explain why Mr O asked for a final decision from an ombudsman. My comment regarding Mr O ‘seeming’ to accept the £150 was solely in relation to the element of his complaint regarding the chargeback, and not the complaint overall. As I say, the investigators outcome was clearly rejected by Mr O, which is why the complaint was 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. What I’ve decided – and why As both parties accepted the recommendation that Amex should pay a total of £250 for the impact its handling of the dispute had on Mr O, I see no reason to depart from the conclusions set out in my provisional decision. Other than to clarify the above and confirm Mr O never accepted the investigator findings and fully rejected these. Putting things right To settle this complaint, Amex should do the following: • Pay Mr O a total of £250 for the distress and inconvenience this matter has caused. My final decision I uphold Mr O’s complaint and require American Express Services Europe Limited to put things right for Mr O as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Paul Blower Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --