Veste

Not upheld: unauthorized recurring transactions on expired card complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6246092 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. unauthorized recurring transactions on expired card complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL). Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6246092
Decision date2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00
FirmAmerican Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)
Productcredit card
Claim typeunauthorized recurring transactions on expired card
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Ms W complained that AESEL approved recurring Amazon subscription payments on her expired credit card from 2022 onwards. She sought refunds of all charges since expiration and a permanent block on all Amazon merchant numbers. AESEL declined, explaining that recurring authorizations continue after card expiration to prevent service interruption, and that only the cardholder can withdraw consent or cancel subscriptions. The ombudsman upheld AESEL's position, finding that Ms W had not withdrawn consent prior to June 2025 and that AESEL had acted reasonably by providing merchant block facilities and guidance. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that recurring payment authorizations can continue after card expiration to prevent service interruption, and can only be stopped by withdrawing consent. Ms W did not withdraw consent prior to June 2025; raising a disputed transaction claim is not equivalent to withdrawing consent. Since the payments were taken in line with an existing authorization, AESEL made no error. The fact that Amazon uses multiple merchant identification numbers is not AESEL's fault, and AESEL provided reasonable guidance on how to block all numbers. AESEL acted reasonably by offering merchant block facilities and clear advice on next steps.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL), all decisions60525%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website