Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6391551 of 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00. Card / payment disputes complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6391551 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | American Express Services Europe Limited |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | Card / payment disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman did not require Amex to refund the £1,620 or adjust Mr K's credit card account. |
Summary
Mr K purchased a £1,620 baby changing bag using his Amex credit card but claimed he did not receive it, despite the courier's records showing successful delivery with a signature. Mr K pursued both a chargeback enquiry and a Section 75 claim against Amex, but Amex declined both based on the supplier's delivery evidence. The ombudsman found that Mr K had a valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship with Amex for Section 75 purposes, but determined that the courier's delivery records, timestamp, and signed receipt constituted stronger evidence than Mr K's testimony. Although the ombudsman acknowledged the absence of photographic evidence and Mr K's concerns about the signature and recipient name, the balance of evidence supported the conclusion that the supplier fulfilled the delivery contract. The complaint was not upheld, and no refund was ordered.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Mr K had a valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship with Amex for Section 75 purposes (despite the invoice being in his wife's name, as they appeared to be joint purchasers), the evidence provided by the supplier and courier outweighed Mr K's testimony. The courier's delivery records, timestamp, and signature on the receipt, despite Mr K's non-recognition of them, constituted stronger evidence than Mr K's assertion of non-receipt. The ombudsman noted that the name on the receipt had some resemblance to the intended recipient, that no conclusive evidence proved the signature was forged, and that Mr K had not provided alternative delivery instructions despite knowing he would be away. The absence of photographic evidence, while acknowledged as useful, was not a requirement of the courier service. The police report, while showing Mr K took the matter seriously, did not conclusively prove theft or courier error.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| American Express Services Europe Limited, all decisions | 1,334 | 22% |
| Card / payment disputes, all decisions | 14,309 | 19% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 26,052 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website