Veste

Not upheld: connected lender liability claim under section 75 CCA and chargeback dispute complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6285095 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. connected lender liability claim under section 75 CCA and chargeback dispute complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6285095
Decision date2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00
FirmAmerican Express Services Europe Limited
Productcharge card
Claim typeconnected lender liability claim under section 75 CCA and chargeback dispute
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. Complaint not upheld.

Summary

Mr W purchased a timeshare product from a Mexican company while on holiday, paying a down payment via his American Express charge card. He later sought a refund claiming misrepresentation and attempted to cancel within 14 days, but the supplier refused. Mr W complained to American Express seeking recovery under section 75 CCA or chargeback provisions. The ombudsman found that section 75 does not apply to charge card accounts requiring full repayment within three months, and the chargeback claim failed because the Mexican-governed contract validly specified a 5-day cancellation period and fell outside UK timeshare regulations. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Section 75 CCA does not apply to charge card accounts where the full balance must be repaid within three months or less, as Mr W's account requires full repayment. The chargeback claim could not succeed because V's contract validly specified a 5-day cancellation period under Mexican law, and the timeshare agreement fell outside UK regulatory protections (Timeshare Regulations and Consumer Contracts Regulations) as it was made in Mexico concerning property outside the UK/EEA. American Express's decision not to pursue the chargeback further was reasonable given V's sufficient contractual defence.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
American Express Services Europe Limited, all decisions1,31922%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website