American Express Services Europe Limited · DRN-5989426

The complaint Mr S complains about how American Express Services Europe Limited trading as American Express (“Amex”) handled a claim he made under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“Section 75”). What happened In November 2024, Mr S used his credit card account with Amex to hire a car overseas. Shortly after Mr S handed the car back to the rental company, who I’ll call “X”, he noticed an additional transaction on his account statement. After making enquiries, Mr S says he discovered that X had passed on a penalty charge for a traffic offence. However, Mr S says the traffic offence happened before he was given the car by X. So, he said he shouldn’t be held responsible for the penalty charge. Mr S didn’t manage to resolve things with X, so he raised a Section 75 claim with Amex. Within their review, Amex told Mr S that X’s paperwork shows that the car was in his possession, when the traffic offence happened. So, they didn’t uphold his claim and declined provide a refund of the charge. Mr S didn’t agree and raised a complaint. He said Amex had misunderstood the paperwork. He also said there was a significant period of time, from when he signed the hire agreement, to when he was given the rental car. And it was within that time frame, where an employee of X had likely committed the traffic offence. In Amex’s final response to Mr S’s complaint, they reiterated their reasons for declining the Section 75 claim. Mr S didn’t accept Amex’s response and complained further about the delay in their review. He also referred his complaint to this service. One of our investigators looked into Mr S’s case and found that Amex had treated Mr S fairly. Based on the paperwork, the investigator found it likely the car was in Mr S’s possession at the time of the traffic offence. So, he said X hadn’t breached the terms of the rental agreement and that Amex hadn’t made an error in the handling of the Section 75 claim. Mr S didn’t agree and provided an image, which he says proves he wasn’t given the car by X, until after the penalty charge was issued. Mr S also described the rental procedure and timescales at X’s offices. The investigator didn’t change his conclusions and Mr S’s complaint has now been passed to me to make a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I want to acknowledge where I’ve summarised the events of Mr S’s complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this, as it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I’m required to

-- 1 of 3 --

decide matters quickly and with minimum formality. But I want to assure Mr S and Amex that I’ve reviewed everything on file. And if I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. What I need to consider is whether Amex, as a provider of financial services, has acted fairly and reasonably in the way they handled Mr S’s request for getting his money back. It’s important to note Amex isn’t the supplier of the services Mr S took a rental contract out for. So, I’ve gone on to think about the specific card protections that are available. In situations like this, I think Amex’s option was to consider assessing a claim under Section 75. Section 75 is a statutory protection that enables Mr S to make a like claim against Amex. The claim can be for breach of contract or misrepresentation by a supplier, paid by a credit card in respect of an agreement they had with him for the provision of goods or services. But there are certain conditions that need to be met for Section 75 to apply. And having thought about those conditions in Mr S’s case, I think they have been met. So, I’ve gone on to think about the claim itself. Within Amex’s submissions to us, they have sent us X’s records of the rental agreement that they had with Mr S. Having looked at those records, I can see where X gave Mr S a voucher when he made the booking for the car hire. It was for Mr S to present the voucher at X’s offices overseas. The voucher details the rental period starting at noon, on 6 November 2024. Additionally, I can see from the same records, where the penalty charge for the traffic offence was issued at 11:50am on the same day as Mr S’s rental period started with X. So, on the face of it, Mr S was due to be given the car from X, after the penalty charge was issued. However, the voucher appears to be an estimate start time, based on scheduled flight arrival times. I say this as I’ve also seen where the rental agreement was signed by Mr S and completed at X’s offices at 11:03am. This means Mr S’s rental agreement with X started before the penalty charge was issued. With this in mind, I’ve thought about Mr S’s arguments about the timescale between signing the contract and queuing to collect and take charge of the vehicle. Mr S says it was nearly another hour from signing the hire agreement, to when he was able to drive the car. Amex have provided a copy of a damage report, completed by X’s employee, when the car was handed to Mr S. I can see from this report where it has a signature that resembles Mr S’s, and where both parties agree on the general condition of the car. The damage report is dated on the same day as the start of the rental agreement, and it includes a handwritten time stamp. I accept Mr S’s point that the handwriting on the damage report is not as clear as a typed document. But, after looking at all the details on this document, on balance I think the time stamp on damage report shows the car was given to Mr S at 11:40am. This would put the car in Mr S’s possession at the time of the issue of the penalty charge. I’m also aware that Mr S disputes signing the damage report. However, I’ve considered all the signatures across all the documents, and where Mr S is likely to have signed the damage report upon the return of the rental car. Having done so, I think it was fair for Amex to conclude that it’s likely the signature is his. I’m also mindful of the photograph Mr S has provided, which he said was taken when he was handed the car. The photograph has a time recording of 11:52am. While I accept it’s likely

-- 2 of 3 --

Mr S wanted to have his own record of the car’s condition, I’m not persuaded it confirms when he was handed the car by X. Against this background and in light of all the other evidence, I think it was reasonable for Amex to accept X’s view, that the car was in Mr S’s possession when the penalty charge was issued. So, I think it was fair for Amex to decline Mr S’s Section 75 claim, as it seems X hadn’t breached the contract they had with Mr S. Mr S has also complained about the time it took Amex to review his Section 75 claim. Having looked at Mr S’s records and those of Amex, I can see that he raised his Section 75 claim in August 2025. I can also see that Amex provided the outcome of their review around two weeks later. Although I accept Mr S found that timescale frustrating, I don’t think it was unreasonable, considering the evidence Amex needed to gather. So, I don’t think Amex caused Mr S an unnecessary delay in reaching their outcome to his claim. Overall, I think Amex handled Mr S’s section 75 claim fairly and I don’t require them to make a settlement to Mr S. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr S’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Sam Wedderburn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --