Not upheld: complaint handling failure and service error complaint against American Express Service Europe Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained to AMEX about a fraudulent flight booking transaction and disputed the charge. AMEX initially mishandled the complaint by raising a chargeback instead of logging it as fraud, but later corrected this error in September 2025 and refunded the payment, removed associated fees and charges, and cleared adverse credit file information. AMEX paid £200 in compensation for its errors. Mr S sought an additional £600 in compensation, claiming over 30 hours spent dealing with the issue and distress from the adverse credit file information. The ombudsman found that while AMEX's initial error was genuine and Mr S spent a reasonable amount of time resolving it, the £200 compensation already paid was fair under FOS guidelines and no additional compensation was warranted, as there was no evidence the credit file information prevented Mr S from obtaining any lending he had applied for.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that AMEX made an error in not initially logging the complaint correctly and that Mr S spent a reasonable amount of time (approximately 3 hours on phone calls plus chat communications) attempting to resolve the matter, which warranted compensation. However, the ombudsman found that the £200 already paid by AMEX was fair and reasonable under FOS guidelines for a larger single mistake requiring reasonable effort to sort out with some distress caused. The ombudsman rejected Mr S's claim for additional compensation for time spent drafting correspondence and compiling evidence, as this is not something AMEX should compensate for. Regarding the adverse credit file information, while acknowledging it was distressing, the ombudsman found no evidence that Mr S was actually rejected for any lending he had applied for, and therefore could not establish additional impact beyond the understandable distress caused.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website