Financial Ombudsman Service rules not necessary to pay w Amex for FHR benefits
Discuss today's stories:
-
Just had it ruled by FOS that extras on hotel room do not have to be paid with Amex to get FHR benefits. Can split bill across two cards.
The complaint
Mr S complains that AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED (Amex) treated him unfairly, by requiring him to use his Amex card to book a hotel room, and to pay for incidental expenses, in order to benefit from their Fine Hotels + Resorts (FHR) program.
What happened
Mr S holds an Amex credit card. As an Amex card member, Mr S is able to access a card-member benefit known as the “Fine Hotels + Resorts (FHR) Program”. The program offers particular rewards at a number of specific, hand-selected hotels, around the world, which include, but aren’t limited to perks such as: late checkouts, room upgrades and complimentary breakfasts. When booking hotels through this program, it seems, at least on this occasion, that there is an option to pay either in advance when booking, or, at the hotel directly.
Mr S booked a trip to Mallorca through the FHR program. And he was due to be paying the hotel directly for both the room and some incidental costs charged to his room. Upon checkout, he attempted to pay for the room itself using his Amex card (which he initially accepted was a requirement of the FHR program); and for the incidentals – like room service – using another card (so as not to incur what he deemed to be unnecessary foreign exchange (FX) fees).
However, upon attempting the above, Mr S was informed by hotel staff that it was a requirement of the FHR program that he pay for all costs – including charges to his room – using his Amex card. And he was shown a copy of the terms and conditions that the hotel agreed with Amex confirming this. Unhappy, Mr S complained to Amex. He said he didn’t think it was fair that he was being made to use his Amex card to pay for incidental costs, which he said had nothing to do with the booking itself.
Amex responded. They said they felt their terms were fair, which required customers to pay for any reservations made using either their Amex card, or their membership rewards points. And while possible to pay using a different card on checkout, upon doing so, customers would forego any benefits included under the FHR program, which would then become chargeable. They explained however that customers were able to pay for any incidental expenses using a non-Amex card, but the payment methods that could be used would be at the hotel’s discretion. So, Amex agreed to refund the £2.99 FX fee Mr S accrued as a result.
But Mr S remained unhappy and brought his complaint to our service. When doing so, he also added that he wanted Amex to review all previous bookings he had made under the FHR program, to see if he’d been charged any FX fees, and requested they be returned. He said it was now his view that neither the room, nor any extras should have to be paid using an Amex card, as it restricted his freedom of choice.
Amex however, said this new issue had not been raised with them, and they had not been provided with records of any incidental charges Mr S may have incurred on other bookings. But, in the absence of this evidence, they did agree to pay Mr S £75 as a gesture of good
will in full and final settlement of that matter outside of this complaint.An investigator considered Mr S’s complaint, and recommended it be upheld. He said that while he was satisfied it was reasonable for his room booking to be paid for, using an Amex card, he felt Mr S should be free to pay for any incidental costs using a payment method of his choosing. And he said that the terms provided to the hotel and those provided to customers should reflect the same information. So, he thought it was right of Amex to refund
the £2.99 fee in the circumstances. He also recommended that Amex pay Mr S £100 for the distress and inconvenience this current matter had caused. He made no finding on the new points raised for which Amex had offered a £75 compensation payment. Amex accepted the Investigator’s findings, but Mr S remained unhappy, and reiterated; that Amex were not making clear the FX fees applicable up front; that they should provide evidence they have communicated with all FHR hotels, informing them that there is no requirement for customers to pay for incidentals using their Amex cards; and, if they can’t, then they should agree to waive any subsequent FX fees incurred.So as both parties are still in disagreement, the case has been passed to me, to decide.
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.
The issue of whether or not it’s reasonable for Amex to require – as part of their FHR program – that customers pay for incidentals using their Amex card, I feel has now been resolved. Amex have confirmed this isn’t a requirement, despite the terms Mr S has highlighted between Amex and a partner hotel; and Amex have agreed to refund any associated fees Mr S incurred, as a result of paying for those costs using his Amex for the above trip. So, I won’t make any further finding on this matter, other than to say I think it was fair of Amex to refund the additional costs associated with Mr S’s spend on incidentals during the above trip on his Amex card, given what Amex have said about this matter.
The next issue Mr S has highlighted is that he expects that Amex provide either evidence that they have contacted all hotels within their group to confirm that incidental costs are not required to be paid for using an Amex card; or, if they’re unable to, that they agree to refund or remove any associated FX fees customers incur as a result, given he thinks Amex have not made clear what the FX fees are up front.
It’s important to highlight, that my role, as an Ombudsman, is to reach a fair and impartial decision, based on the circumstances of the particular complaint I am looking at. This does not extend to telling businesses, on a wholesale level, what changes they should make to their terms for instance; or, getting confirmation that they have provided clarity to an entire group of hotels on particular aspects their overarching terms – this is not within my remit. So, while I appreciate Mr S feels strongly about this, I won’t be instructing Amex to carry out either of the above requests he has made.
Also, as Mr S’s initial complaint was not about the historic fees charged for incidentals trips (for which Amex have now offered £75 compensation in full and final settlement of), I make no finding on this element of the complaint, or the compensation offered. All I can consider, in this review, is what Mr S complained to Amex about and what it had the opportunity to respond to. Any further points will need to be raised and addressed separately.
So, the key point left for me to decide here, is whether or not I think it’s reasonable for Amex to require customers to use their Amex card when booking hotel rooms, in order to obtain the benefits provided under their FHR program, when FX fees are attached.
It’s key to note that the FHR program is a member benefit. It’s something customers are able to take advantage of, as an added feature of their Amex card account, should they wish to. It’s not compulsory. But in choosing to use this feature, customers are afforded certain perks or benefits, when booking a stay.
Also, it’s key to highlight that FX fees are not uncommon. And by the nature of making a booking for a hotel in another country, these charges are likely to be applied, dependant on where and when payment is made for that booking, and the currency used.
Moreover, as a fairly general point, my view is that it’s not inherently unreasonable for a business, when providing a particular product, to have requirements in order for the benefits of that product to be accessed. This isn’t uncommon and I think it reasonable to say that the FHR program, from Amex’s position, is likely designed to allow customers to access these account features, while in return, gaining a benefit from having customers use their Amex card to pay for them. Again, this doesn’t seem inherently unreasonable.
I appreciate Mr S feels that requiring him to pay for a booking using his Amex card when booking through the FHR program signifies a lack of ‘freedom of choice’. But Mr S has the choice to book a holiday through whichever company he so chooses. And its not a requirement of his Amex card that the only trips he now takes, need to be booked using Amex’s FHR program.
I appreciate Mr S’s complaint here seems to be driven by a lack of clarity on the FX fees he would be charged up front, and his concerns arise from instances where FX fees are payable, rather than necessarily in every situation. But as I’ve set out above, I don’t think its uncommon for these types of fees to be included in situations where payments are being made for an overseas booking.
So, in this instance, I accept Mr S did pay slightly more than he was expecting for his overall booking, as a result of an FX fee charged upon checkout. But this was comparatively speaking a small amount, and I’m satisfied that the £100 compensation the investigator recommended, is more than sufficient to cover both the distress caused, and the small financial loss experienced, as a result of the FX fee being added to his final bill.
So, while I appreciate this may come as a disappointment to Mr S, I’m satisfied the £100 compensation the investigator recommended is sufficient in the circumstances, and I won’t be instructing Amex to do anything further.My final decision
My final decision is that I uphold Mr S’s complaint, and if they haven’t already, AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED should pay Mr S £100 compensation for any distress this matter may have caused.
Great result despite the low compensation.
Doesn’t the ruling say the exact opposite of the title of this thread?
“Moreover, as a fairly general point, my view is that it’s not inherently unreasonable for a business, when providing a particular product, to have requirements in order for the benefits of that product to be accessed. This isn’t uncommon and I think it reasonable to say that the FHR program, from Amex’s position, is likely designed to allow customers to access these account features, while in return, gaining a benefit from having customers use their Amex card to pay for them. Again, this doesn’t seem inherently unreasonable.”
Congrats on milking Amex.
Thread title is completely misleading.
This title makes no sense – in fact the OPPOSITE is true.
The only exception is that it’s ok to pay for incidentals on a different card – but that was what amex said, not the FOS.
All FHR hotels given T&Cs by Amex which state incidentals must ALSO be paid with Amex. FOS ruling that they must not.
All FHR hotels given T&Cs by Amex which state incidentals must ALSO be paid with Amex. FOS ruling that they must not.
That’s not what the FOS said! It’s also not a ‘ruling’. It’s a decision about the particular circumstances of your case. What an appalling waste of everyone’s time for £2.99 and one can see why Amex customer service has declined when they have to deal with this sort of stuff.
@JDB I would have thought you’d know better to make the tenuous link between unserious complaints and the deliberate underinvestment and eroding of Platinum concierge, Amex CS agents lying about just about everything in live chats etc – any half-decent Salesforce bot could sift through rubbish pretty easily. It’s not beyond them.
@JDB I would have thought you’d know better to makw the tenuous link between unserious complaints and the deliberate underinvestment and eroding of Platinum concierge, Amex CS agents lying about just about everything in live chats etc – any half-decent Salesforce bot could sift through rubbish pretty easily. It’s not beyond them.
@executiveclubber – the problem is that certain cardholders lie, cheat, try to take advantage of Amex or just waste their time like this one. Perhaps you have forgotten the times when offers that didn’t track were immediately fixed because they believed what the customer said and complaints resolved quickly and generously in the customer’s favour. The customer was always given the benefit of the doubt, but that’s no longer the case. That’s different to cost cutting but in this case where it will have cost Amex over £1000 to deal with this nonsense, all the customers pay for that, not Amex.Re underinvestment, Amex has determined that it’s cheaper to buy people off with welcome bonuses and retentions than improve the products for all. Many here seem to like that decision.
All FHR hotels given T&Cs by Amex which state incidentals must ALSO be paid with Amex. FOS ruling that they must not.
Consider asking ChatGPT to summarize the “ruling” to see if you understand it.
You all seem awfully vexed by this. Do you work for Amex by chance?
You all seem awfully vexed by this. Do you work for Amex by chance?
People are “vexed” because your headline does not match the actual FOS finding so is misleading.
And saying people are only vexed because they work for Amex is just a down right lazy critique.
And no I don’t work for Amex and nor do I have any Amex cards but I – and others – do expect posters to provide accurate thread titles!
Yet another poster getting unnecessarily aggressive with respondents because they have the temerity to not share the OP’s view.
I think you should have to pass a test before you can start posting on here.
Grrr
You all seem awfully vexed by this. Do you work for Amex by chance?
I’m not sure if any of the comments suggest that anyone is either vexed or works for Amex.
The primary point raised in comment is that your thread title is totally misleading; the FOS concurred with Amex save for giving you an extra £25.
While some people are critical of the FOS (principally when decisions go against them) it’s a fantastic, free public service so when people abuse it over £2.99 when some people are seriously out of pocket, and/or complaining about serious matters, this sort of frivolous or vexatious complaint is positively grotesque.
The investigator gave you £25 more than Amex offered but still you insisted on escalating to an Ombudsman wholly inappropriately adding a totally new element of complaint you must or should have known couldn’t be considered by the FOS adding a further vexatious aspect. The service is totally overrun with these absurd complaints.
Anyone who can afford to stay at an FHR hotel not only ought to be serious enough to comply with the terms but able to afford the very limited extras they spent and the tiny FX fee (or as the FOS politely puts it a “comparatively speaking a small amount”).
I think you may not only have understood what the Ombudsman said but the dismissive tone in which it was put. It was the most horrible abuse of the FOS service as the result demonstrated.
The two ironies from this are that, even earning minimum wage you have lost money on this caper and had the time been more usefully spent, you could undoubtedly got a far better rate at the hotel, benefits included, than the FHR rate and paid with whatever card you wished.
Please save your tears for yourself, @JDB. Yawn.
Great result despite the low compensation.
Thanks ! ☺️
Ignore the haters who work for Amex above.
I think everyone is in agreement with JDB on this occasion.
Yet another poster getting unnecessarily aggressive with respondents because they have the temerity to not share the OP’s view.
I think you should have to pass a test before you can start posting on here.
The FOS does not share the OP’s view. They are the one that don’t seem to understand that, thus the title they chose
Also, it was the OP that started to get aggressive after 3 non-aggressive and totally neutral responses pointed out that the title of the thread did not match the content of the FOS response.
You shouldn’t have to pass a test to post here, but if you want to post silly things everyone has the right to challenge them.
FOS UPHELD complaint. ‘Nuff said.
Yet another poster getting unnecessarily aggressive with respondents because they have the temerity to not share the OP’s view.
I think you should have to pass a test before you can start posting on here.
The FOS does not share the OP’s view. They are the one that don’t seem to understand that, thus the title they chose
Also, it was the OP that started to get aggressive after 3 non-aggressive and totally neutral responses pointed out that the title of the thread did not match the content of the FOS response.
You shouldn’t have to pass a test to post here, but if you want to post silly things everyone has the right to challenge them.
I think you’ve misunderstood my post. Unless I’ve misunderstood yours? We’ll be calling each other bad names shortly. 😁
I think I did indeed! Long day… Apologies
FOS UPHELD complaint. ‘Nuff said.
No one disputed that, so that’s quite irrelevant.
No need to apologise. Amex trolls are out in force on this forum !
I wasn’t apologising to you. *Facepalm*
At this point I must assume this is a wind up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
