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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that American Express was holding him liable for transactions made by a third party to whom he had given his card. He claimed he was coerced and acting under duress, influenced by a family bereavement that impacted his mental health. American Express demonstrated that the transactions were authenticated via Apple Pay token and that Mr H had confirmed their validity and affordability when queried in 2024. The ombudsman found that Mr H had provided apparent authority by giving his card, PIN, and one-time passcode to the third party, and rejected the coercion claim due to lack of independent evidence and the suspicious timing of the dispute (raised in November 2025, well after the 2024 transactions and only after debt collection was initiated). The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require authentication and consent for authorised transactions. Mr H explicitly provided his card, PIN, and one-time passcode to the third party, constituting apparent authority. While acknowledging the serious impact of the family bereavement on Mr H's mental health, the ombudsman found no independent evidence to support the claim of coercion. The timing of the dispute (November 2025, well after the 2024 transactions and after debt collection was initiated) undermined Mr H's credibility, as did his confirmation to American Express in 2024 that transactions were valid and affordable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website