Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R paid £18,500 for a Master of Laws degree course using his AESEL credit card and received a Master of Laws in Bar Professional Training with Commendation in October 2018. In September 2024, approximately six years later, Mr R raised a Section 75 CCA claim alleging the university had misrepresented the degree and breached the implied term of reasonable care and skill by awarding it under the NQF framework instead of FHEQ and using 'commendation' instead of 'merit'. AESEL declined the claim, and the ombudsman upheld this decision, finding the evidence insufficient to demonstrate breach or misrepresentation and noting the complexity of the matter would be better suited to court determination. The ombudsman also raised concerns about potential limitation period issues given the six-year delay in raising the claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that AESEL acted fairly in declining the claim because the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman noted that neither the QAA, FHEQ, nor OfS had expressed concerns about the validity of the degree awarded. The ombudsman acknowledged the complexity of the legal arguments involved and considered them more suitable for court determination. The ombudsman also noted potential limitation period issues under the Limitation Act 1980, as Mr R raised the claim six years after the course started.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website