Not upheld: chargeback handling and Section 75 claim (misrepresentation and breach of contract) complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms B booked an apartment stay for £1,600 through booking platform X and experienced issues including the apartment being in a basement (undisclosed), amenities being in shared spaces rather than private, ant infestation, unauthorized access, and appliance problems. She disputed the charge with AESEL, which raised a chargeback that was defended by X with pictures and explanations from the service provider L. AESEL declined to pursue the chargeback further and rejected Ms B's subsequent Section 75 claim on the basis of no valid debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and insufficient evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The ombudsman upheld AESEL's decisions, finding the chargeback defence reasonable and the Section 75 claim lacking sufficient evidence, particularly given Ms B's full use of the services.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that AESEL fairly declined the chargeback given the evidence provided by X in defence, including pictures and L's explanations. On Section 75, while a DCS agreement may exist, there was insufficient evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The ombudsman distinguished between misdescription and misrepresentation, noting that Ms B's use of the services meant the contract was largely performed. The evidence regarding the basement location was not conclusively a false statement of fact, the amenities were accessible albeit in shared spaces, and the issues with ants, ventilation, and dishwasher were not conclusively proven to result from L's failure to provide reasonable care and skill.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website