Not upheld: chargeback and Section 75 claim handling; alleged overcharging and misrepresentation by service provider complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (trading as American Express)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained that Amex unfairly rejected his chargeback and Section 75 claim against a locksmith who charged him approximately £660 for emergency lockout services in June 2025. Mr L alleged the locksmith misrepresented its services by promising no call out fees and non-destructive entry methods, but then charged a call out fee and used destructive methods, allegedly overcharging him by £300. Amex rejected both the chargeback and Section 75 claim, finding insufficient evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The ombudsman upheld Amex's decision, finding that while the website Mr L referenced promised no call out fees, it appeared to belong to a different locksmith entity, creating uncertainty about what terms applied. The ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence that the destructive methods were unnecessary, the lock replacement was not needed, or that pricing was not explained beforehand, and therefore Amex had acted fairly in rejecting the claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr L may have had a legitimate grievance with the locksmith, Amex was not obligated to pursue the chargeback or Section 75 claim further because the evidence did not clearly support the necessary grounds. The key difficulty was that the website Mr L referenced appeared to belong to a different locksmith, creating uncertainty about what terms Mr L actually agreed to. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence that the destructive methods used were unnecessary, that the lock replacement was not needed, or that the price was not explained beforehand. The ombudsman acknowledged Amex faced a genuine evidentiary challenge with conflicting accounts from two parties and concluded the evidence did not support Mr L's claims of misrepresentation or breach of contract.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website