Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H purchased a £1,879 drone using his AMEX credit card, ordered by his brother to his brother's address. When Mr H claimed non-receipt, AMEX raised a chargeback but the retailer provided courier delivery photographs and tracking data showing successful delivery to the correct building entrance. AMEX declined to proceed with the chargeback, concluding the evidence showed likely successful delivery. Mr H also claimed a Section 75 CCA right, but AMEX determined no valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship existed because his brother, not Mr H, was the contracting party. The ombudsman upheld AMEX's decisions, finding the delivery evidence persuasive on the balance of probabilities and confirming that the person placing the order (Mr H's brother) is the contracting party regardless of who pays.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that AMEX correctly applied chargeback scheme rules and acted fairly in concluding the evidence did not show goods were not delivered. The courier's photo matched Google Maps imagery of the building entrance, and the tracking data supported successful delivery. While the evidence was incomplete and inconclusive, on the balance of probabilities it was reasonable for AMEX to believe the goods were likely successfully delivered to the building entrance. Regarding Section 75 CCA, the ombudsman found no valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship existed because the contracting party was Mr H's brother (who placed the order and received delivery), not Mr H, who merely facilitated payment. Under UK consumer law, the person who places the order and enters the contract is the contracting party regardless of who pays.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website