Not upheld: chargeback handling and dispute resolution; alleged irresponsible handling of chargeback claims complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained about AESEL's handling of chargeback disputes relating to a hotel stay booked through platform T and charged by hotel R. Mr M disputed approximately £670 in additional charges, claiming items were not received or billed incorrectly, and that complimentary offers and discounts should have offset the charges. AESEL raised the initial chargeback dispute but did not pursue it further after R provided supporting documentation defending the charges. The ombudsman found that AESEL fairly handled the dispute because Mr M did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the billing was incorrect or that pursuing the chargeback would have had a reasonable prospect of success. Although the ombudsman noted AESEL could have communicated more clearly about the separate transactions involved, it declined to uphold the complaint or direct any refund.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that AESEL fairly raised the initial chargeback dispute with R based on Mr M's complaint. However, when R defended the chargeback with supporting documentation showing the charges were authorised and providing an itemised breakdown, AESEL faced evidential challenges. The ombudsman concluded that Mr M did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the billing was incorrect or that the chargeback would have had a reasonable prospect of success if pursued to American Express arbitration. The evidence was conflicting: Mr M claimed items were not received or discounts should apply, while R provided documentation supporting the charges. The ombudsman noted that even if there were minor billing discrepancies (such as the £15 in disputed food discount amounts), these were insufficient to warrant pursuing the claim further, particularly given the significant discount offer R had already made. The ombudsman also found that AESEL could have communicated more clearly about the separate transactions but did not act unfairly in its overall handling.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website