Not upheld: Section 75 claim rejection and chargeback handling - holiday service quality dispute complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6131044 of 2026-04-17T00:00:00+00:00. Section 75 claim rejection and chargeback handling - holiday service quality dispute complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6131044 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL) |
| Product | credit card |
| Claim type | Section 75 claim rejection and chargeback handling - holiday service quality dispute |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. AESEL is not required to make any payment to Miss G. Miss G may approach T to accept its offer of £80 or £170 voucher if still available. |
Summary
Miss G purchased a packaged holiday for £1,642.54 through supplier T using an AESEL credit card, paying an additional £300 for an upgraded room at a 5-star hotel. Upon arrival, Miss G found the hotel fell short of her expectations, citing poor cleanliness, maintenance issues, and substandard service. She complained to T, which offered £80 or a £170 voucher, and subsequently raised a Section 75 claim with AESEL, which rejected it. Miss G disputed AESEL's handling, arguing the hotel was misrepresented and that photographic evidence proved poor conditions. The ombudsman found no breach of contract or misrepresentation because there is no internationally recognised star rating standard, the photographic evidence showed only general wear and tear, and the overall price paid supported the conclusion that reasonable care and skill were provided. AESEL's rejection of both the chargeback and Section 75 claim was upheld as fair and reasonable.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that AESEL acted fairly in declining both the chargeback and Section 75 claim. Regarding the chargeback, while the reason code used may not have been optimal, the outcome would likely have been the same as T's defence was credible and there is no internationally recognised star rating standard to prove misrepresentation. For Section 75, no breach of contract or misrepresentation was established because: (1) there is no false statement of fact in T's literature; (2) star ratings vary by country and are based on facilities rather than quality; (3) the photographic evidence showed general wear and tear rather than a breach of the implied term of reasonable care and skill; and (4) considering the overall price paid, the service did not fall below reasonable standards. The ombudsman noted that Miss G's expectations, while understandable, do not equate to a contractual breach.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL), all decisions | 605 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website