Not upheld: dispute handling and credit limit restriction complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6211974 of 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. dispute handling and credit limit restriction complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6211974 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | American Express Services Europe Limited |
| Product | credit card |
| Claim type | dispute handling and credit limit restriction |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr E disputed a £109 transaction on his American Express credit card and was unhappy that Amex removed this amount from his available credit during the investigation. He claimed this caused inconvenience and stress, and sought compensation and a review of Amex's dispute handling policy. The ombudsman found that Amex's standard approach of suspending disputed amounts was fair and in line with industry practice, and that the amount was promptly suspended and removed from Mr E's balance, creating no realised financial loss. The ombudsman rejected Mr E's complaint, noting that systemic policy issues fall to the regulator and that theoretical losses do not warrant compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Amex's standard approach of suspending disputed amounts during investigation was fair and in line with industry practice. The suspended amount was promptly removed from Mr E's balance and payment due, creating no realised financial detriment. The ombudsman noted that the suspended amount represented less than 1% of available credit, and Mr E was provided with clear timescales for resolution. The ombudsman also clarified that complaint handling issues fall outside the FOS's remit and that theoretical losses or harm do not warrant compensation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| American Express Services Europe Limited, all decisions | 1,312 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website