Not upheld: interest charges and complaint handling complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6219664 of 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00. interest charges and complaint handling complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6219664 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL) |
| Product | credit card |
| Claim type | interest charges and complaint handling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr P complained that AESEL applied an interest charge of £335.67 to his British Airways American Express credit card account after he paid his balance two days late on 30 September 2025, when the due date was 28 September 2025. Mr P believed his payment would be collected automatically by direct debit and felt the charge was disproportionate given that he paid the full balance. He also complained about the way his complaint was handled. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that AESEL correctly applied the interest charge in accordance with the terms and conditions, and that the customer service representative treated him fairly.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that AESEL correctly applied interest charges because Mr P's payment was made after the due date, in accordance with the terms and conditions that Mr P had accepted. The ombudsman noted that consistent application of terms and conditions across all cardholders is important for fair treatment, and that it would be unfair to give Mr P preferential treatment over other customers who paid late. The ombudsman also reviewed the chat transcript and found no evidence that the AESEL representative treated Mr P unfairly or provided incorrect information.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL), all decisions | 603 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website