Not upheld: chargeback handling and dispute resolution complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S purchased goods worth approximately £580 from an online retailer using her AESEL credit card but claimed she did not receive them. AESEL raised a chargeback on her behalf, but the retailer defended the claim with comprehensive evidence including delivery records, GPS data, and photographs showing delivery to Mrs S's address across multiple dates. AESEL discontinued the chargeback after reviewing the evidence. The ombudsman found AESEL acted fairly because the chargeback scheme rules only require proof of delivery to the specified address, not physical possession, and the retailer's evidence was sufficient under those rules. Additionally, Mrs S cannot pursue a section 75 claim as each item was under £100. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman clarified that the decision concerns whether AESEL acted fairly in applying chargeback rules, not whether Mrs S would have a valid legal claim against R. Under the relevant American Express chargeback scheme rules, the retailer was permitted to defend the claim by showing goods were delivered to the address specified by the consumer. The rules do not require proof of direct handover or placement at the flat door, nor do they incorporate the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The retailer's evidence was comprehensive, including tracking records, GPS data, and photographs across multiple deliveries on different dates. Therefore, AESEL did not act unfairly in concluding the retailer had adequately defended the chargeback. Additionally, Mrs S cannot pursue a section 75 claim because each item purchased was under £100, placing them outside the cash price limits required for section 75 protection.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website