DRN-6155383

The complaint Miss F complains NewDay Ltd (trading as Marbles) unfairly terminated her credit card account after she told it she was in financial difficulty. What happened On 23 March 2025, NewDay wrote to Miss F to inform her she hadn’t met the last two minimum payments due on her Marbles credit card, leaving her account £275.75 in arrears. On 24 March 2025, Miss F told NewDay she had lost her job and couldn’t keep up with the repayments. NewDay put a 90-day pause in place and froze interest and charges. It also told her arrears would continue to build and that, if the account reached 60 days in arrears without a repayment arrangement in place, it would terminate the account. On 29 March 2025, NewDay sent Miss F a default notice. It said that if Miss F didn’t clear the £275.75 of arrears before 19 April 2025, NewDay would terminate the account. On 2 April 2025, Miss F asked NewDay to set up a repayment plan of 1% of the balance per month. NewDay said it could offer a six-month arrangement on that basis, but Miss F declined going through the repayment plan process because she wanted to first hear back about an earlier complaint and to receive paper copies of recent statements. On 22 April 2025, Miss F called again to try to set up a plan. NewDay told her an income and expenditure assessment was needed and said she could send that later. But the agent didn’t tell her the account had already been terminated, or that the deadline for avoiding termination had already passed. NewDay accepts its communication had fallen short. It said it should have informed Miss F her account was already at the point of termination and paid Miss F £70 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It later offered a further £40 compensation because it agreed it should have reminded Miss F sooner that it had already answered her earlier complaint about NewDay reducing her credit limit. Our investigator didn’t think Miss F was in a position to prevent her account from terminating and thought the total offer of £110 was fair given the impact on her. Miss F disagreed. She said if NewDay treated her fairly, her account would not have been terminated. She wanted to be put in the position she’d be in had her account not terminated. 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 may not comment on every point that’s been made. But I’ve considered everything both parties have sent me, and I’ll focus here on what I see are the key issues. Reduced credit limit

-- 1 of 5 --

I appreciate Miss F is unhappy that NewDay reduced her credit limit from £3,650 to £2,750 on 24 October 2024. She says this increased the amount she had to pay towards the account and contributed to her financial difficulties. She wanted our service to consider this aspect of her complaint in addition to her complaint about the account termination, as she felt the reduction of her credit limit formed part of the wider chain of events that led to the termination of her account. However, I can see NewDay had already responded to her complaint about the credit limit reduction in a previous final response dated 7 November 2024. That response said Miss F had the right to refer that complaint to our service within six months of that communication. I understand why Miss F sees these issues as connected. But there are rules we have to follow, known as DISP, which are set out by the Financial Conduct Authority. These rules set out certain conditions that must be satisfied before we can consider a complaint. The relevant rule here is DISP 2.8.2R – which says I cannot consider a complaint if it has been referred to this service: “more than six months after the date on which the respondent sent the complainant its final response, redress determination or summary resolution communication.” So Miss F had to refer her complaint about the credit limit reduction to us by 7 May 2025. But she didn’t contact us until around October 2025, around five months past the deadline. That means the complaint was referred to our service outside the six-month time limit. NewDay has also confirmed that it doesn’t consent to waiving the time limits. Our rules allow me to set aside the time limit if, in my view, Miss F’s failure to contact us within the required time was due to exceptional circumstances. The rules – DISP 2.8.4G – give an example of what constitutes exceptional circumstances – specifically “the complainant has been or is incapacitated”. I’ve considered Miss F’s explanation for the delay. She says she was actively engaging with NewDay, that she understood the credit limit reduction to be part of an ongoing and connected complaint, and that she was in a vulnerable position. I accept these were difficult circumstances, and I can understand why they may have made dealing with matters harder. But I haven’t seen anything to show NewDay agreed to combine the credit limit complaint with the later termination complaint. Nor have I seen anything to show NewDay agreed to extend the time Miss F had to refer the credit limit complaint to us. I’ve also thought carefully about whether Miss F’s personal and financial circumstances amount to exceptional circumstances. The relevant question isn’t whether those circumstances made things difficult. It’s whether they prevented Miss F from bringing her complaint to us in time. I accept Miss F was experiencing significant pressures. But on the evidence I’ve seen, I’m not persuaded she was prevented from referring the complaint to our service within the six-month time limit due to exceptional circumstances. In saying that, I’ve considered that she had been engaging with NewDay about her account during that time. So for the reasons set out above, I consider the complaint raised in 2024 was referred to us too late and we have no power to consider it. What I’ll instead focus on is whether NewDay treated Miss F fairly after she notified NewDay on 24 March 2025 about her financial difficulties.

-- 2 of 5 --

NewDay’s response to Miss F’s financial difficulties Once NewDay became aware of Miss F’s financial difficulties, it needed to treat her with forbearance and due consideration. The Financial Conduct Authority’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook (“CONC”) says that can include deferring payment, or accepting no or reduced payments for a reasonable period. Any arrangement must also be sustainable. Miss F told NewDay she had lost her job, was supporting three young children from benefits, and couldn’t afford any repayment at that stage. NewDay responded by freezing interest and charges and putting a 90-day payment pause in place. It also signposted her to charities offering debt and mental health support. Given what Miss F said about her circumstances, I think that was a reasonable and appropriately tailored form of forbearance. I’m also satisfied NewDay gave Miss F clear warnings about the risks of termination, and when that might happen. It told her on 24 March 2025 that the account would be terminated if it reached 60 days of arrears without a plan in place. It then sent a default notice saying the arrears had to be cleared before 19 April 2025. And on 2 April 2025 it offered to take Miss F through the process of setting up a six-month repayment plan at 1% of the balance per month, but Miss F chose not to pursue that option then. Overall, I’m satisfied NewDay acted fairly in the period leading up to 22 April 2025 and followed the required statutory process set out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 before ending the agreement. Termination of the credit card account Miss F’s core complaint concerns NewDay’s actions on 22 April 2025. Miss F says that, if NewDay had told her during the call on 22 April 2025 that the account was at the point of termination, she could have acted in time to stop that happening. I understand why she feels that way. The termination letter is dated 22 April 2025, which might suggest there was still time that day to prevent the account from closing. But, having looked at the evidence, I think it’s more likely than not the account had already been terminated before Miss F’s call that afternoon. By then the default notice deadline had already passed. NewDay had already told Miss F on 24 March 2025 that the account would terminate on 21 April 2025 if no plan was in place. NewDay’s system notes show the 22 April 2025 call took place later in the day, at around 1:30pm. And NewDay has since said the account had already been terminated well before that call. On balance of probabilities, I think that’s the more likely position. But even if I’m wrong about that, I still haven’t seen enough to persuade me Miss F lost a realistic opportunity to keep the account open. On 24 March 2025, NewDay discussed a repayment arrangement of 1% of the balance per month, subject to an income and expenditure assessment. But because Miss F said she couldn’t afford any payment at that stage, NewDay instead put a 90-day payment pause in place. It made the same 1% repayment-plan offer again on 2 April 2025, well before the default notice expired, but Miss F chose not to go ahead at that stage. While I understand why Miss F wanted more time before agreeing to a plan, I don’t think that obligated NewDay to keep the account open beyond the default notice deadline. And I cannot reasonably say, given the overall circumstances, the majority of the delay in setting up a repayment plan in time – and the consequences for this not happening — can fairly be

-- 3 of 5 --

attributed to NewDay. In short, I don’t think it’s fair to say the later communication failing on 22 April 2025 can be said to be the cause of the account terminating. In any event, by the time of the 22 April 2025 call there was very little time left. NewDay said an income and expenditure assessment was needed before a plan could be considered. Miss F said she didn’t have the information needed to complete that during the call. So I don’t think there was likely enough time for her to get the information she needed to fill out the income and expenditure form, return it to NewDay, have it reviewed, and have a plan put in place before the termination took effect. I say that while bearing in mind Miss F’s recent comments that she wasn’t informed the income and expenditure form was a prerequisite to a repayment plan. The suggestion here is that it would be unfair to take into account the time it would take her to fill out the income and expenditure form when deciding if there was enough time to set up a plan. However, I can see that when she called NewDay on 24 March 2025, the agent explained to her that an income and expenditure form was a prerequisite to a repayment plan. So I’m satisfied she had been adequately informed about the repayment plan process in advance. I’m mindful that Miss F later entered into a payment arrangement. But that doesn’t show one would probably have been agreed on 22 April 2025 before the account terminated. By then the position was different, because the account had already defaulted and closed. So, while I accept NewDay should have told Miss F more clearly on 22 April 2025 that the account had already been terminated, or that the deadline for avoiding termination had already passed, I’m not persuaded that failing deprived her of a real opportunity to prevent the account closing. Other fairness considerations Miss F also indirectly referred to the Financial Conduct Authority’s Consumer Duty, including the duty to avoid foreseeable harm and to deliver good outcomes for customers in vulnerable circumstances. Miss F said she was reliant on the credit card account to help manage her finances, and having it taken away has caused her harm. Put simply, she doesn’t think NewDay should have terminated the agreement given her vulnerability. The Consumer Duty sits alongside other legal and regulatory rules that apply here. It’s not a substitute for those rules. And in this case, those included the statutory framework set out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 that expressly allows a lender to terminate an agreement after serving a valid default notice, if the breach isn’t remedied in time. So the question for me isn’t simply whether Miss F was harmed by losing the credit facility, but whether, in all the circumstances, it was fair for NewDay to bring the account to an end when it did. I accept Miss F was in difficult circumstances, and that made it especially important for NewDay to communicate clearly and treat her with appropriate care – which I’m satisfied it did. But I don’t think her vulnerability, or her reliance on the account to manage her finances, meant NewDay had to continue providing the credit facility. Here, the account was around three months in arrears, the default notice had expired, Miss F was struggling financially, and continued access to credit might have made her position worse rather than better. In those circumstances, and for the reasons I’ve already given, I’m not persuaded NewDay acted unfairly simply by ending the account when it did. Putting things right That said, I agree NewDay ought to have communicated, during the call on 22 April 2025, that Miss F’s account had already been terminated. By not doing so, it gave Miss F the

-- 4 of 5 --

impression that there was still a chance to avoid termination, when that wasn’t the case. Additionally, NewDay ought to have also let Miss F know earlier that it had answered her complaint about the credit limit reduction. While I don’t agree NewDay’s poor service deprived Miss F of an opportunity to avoid her account terminating, I accept it had caused her distress and inconvenience. Compensation isn’t a science, but in deciding what’s fair I’ve considered everything the parties submitted, the guidance on our website, and all the circumstances here. Having done so, I agree with our investigator that the £110 compensation in total she recommended is a fair reflection of the distress and inconvenience NewDay caused Miss F. My final decision My decision is that I uphold this complaint and direct NewDay Ltd to pay Miss F a further £40 for the distress and inconvenience caused, in addition to the £70 it has already paid. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss F to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Alex Watts Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --