Not upheld: dispute handling and refusal to process Section 75 claim and chargeback complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased an engagement ring for £3,000 using his AESEL credit card and claimed he received a different, cheaper ring. He provided photographic evidence and witness statements, but the supplier E disputed this and provided their own photographic evidence showing the correct ring was delivered. AESEL declined Mr B's Section 75 claim based on E's plausible evidence. The ombudsman found AESEL acted fairly in its investigation and conclusion, and determined that a chargeback would likely have been unsuccessful given the conflicting evidence and E's plausible defense. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that AESEL fairly considered the Section 75 claim despite conflicting evidence from both parties, as E's evidence was plausible and AESEL attempted to obtain further evidence (CCTV footage). Regarding chargeback, although AESEL did not appear to have considered this option, the ombudsman concluded that a chargeback would likely have been unsuccessful as E would have defended it on the same basis as their Section 75 response, and AESEL would not have pursued it further. The ombudsman noted that AESEL is a separate entity from the supplier and that the key question was whether AESEL acted fairly, not whether the supplier acted fairly.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website