Not upheld: irresponsible lending and unfair credit relationship complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained to Amex in August 2025 about irresponsible lending, claiming she had been in persistent debt for years and paid over £11,000 in interest and late fees since opening her credit card in July 2018. She argued that affordability checks should have been carried out earlier, particularly given the high initial credit limit and her long period of minimum payments. Amex rejected the complaint, and the FOS investigator found the account did not meet the persistent debt definition until May 2025, when Amex took appropriate action. The ombudsman upheld the investigator's decision, finding that Amex had not treated Miss M unfairly, as the credit card terms were not unfair and were applied fairly, and Amex was not required to intervene before the persistent debt threshold was met.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to assess whether the relationship between Amex and Miss M was unfair. The ombudsman found that: (1) the terms of the credit agreement were not unfair and were accepted by Miss M; (2) Amex applied the terms fairly; (3) the account did not meet the persistent debt definition until May 2025, so earlier intervention was not required; and (4) when persistent debt was identified, Amex took appropriate action in line with regulatory requirements. A credit card is by nature a revolving facility designed to allow consumers to spread costs, and interest charges on outstanding balances are standard terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website