DRN-6305673

The complaint Mr B is unhappy that NewDay Ltd (NewDay) won’t reimburse money he lost to a scam. What happened The details of this complaint are well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat everything here. In summary, Mr B has advised he made three payments from his NewDay Aqua and Fluid credit cards in February 2026 which he ultimately lost to an impersonation scam. Mr B lost a total of £2,700 from NewDay as a result of the scam. He also sent payments from other providers as part of the scam. Mr B raised a complaint with NewDay. It investigated the complaint but didn’t uphold it. It didn’t think it had done anything wrong by allowing the payments to go through. So, Mr B brought his complaint to our service. Our Investigator looked into the complaint but didn’t uphold it. Our Investigator didn’t think the payments Mr B made were unusual and so they didn’t feel NewDay should have identified a scam risk. Mr B remained unhappy, so the complaint has been passed to me for a review and 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’m aware that I’ve summarised this complaint briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think is the heart of the matter here. If there’s something I have not mentioned, it isn’t because I have ignored it. I haven’t. I’m satisfied that I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. I have thought about the mandatory reimbursement scheme introduced by the Payment Systems Regulator which came into force in October 2024. However, this scheme doesn’t cover debit card transactions. I’ve therefore considered whether NewDay should reimburse Mr B under any of its other obligations. I agree with the conclusions reached by the Investigator for the following reasons: • Mr B authorised the payments from his credit card accounts and the starting position is that NewDay is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make. • However, I’ve considered whether NewDay should have done more to prevent Mr B from falling victim to the scam, as there are some situations in which a firm should

-- 1 of 2 --

reasonably have had a closer look at the circumstances surrounding a particular transfer. For example, if it was particularly out of character. • I’ve reviewed Mr B’s account statements on both cards, and I can’t conclude that the payments made to the scam would have looked particularly unusual or suspicious to NewDay. I appreciate that the payments lost to the scam may have represented a lot of money to Mr B, but they simply were not of a value where I’d usually expect NewDay to be concerned that Mr B was at a heightened risk of financial harm. Mr B had made three payments over a short period, but I don’t think this, in itself, was sufficient to indicate a patter of fraud. • The payments were also being made to a legitimate organisation, so in the circumstances I wouldn’t have expected NewDay to be concerned that Mr B was at risk based on the destination of the payments. • As I’ve set out above, I don’t think the transactions ought to have indicated that Mr B was at an increased risk of financial harm. So, I don’t think NewDay could reasonably have been expected to intervene to ask further questions before processing the payments. • I also understand that Mr B was experiencing some difficult circumstances at the time he fell victim to the scam. I’m sorry to learn about this. But I can’t say that NewDay was or should have been aware that he was vulnerable or made any special adjustments for him at the time the transactions were made. • I’ve also considered whether, on being alerted to the scam, NewDay could reasonably have done anything to recover Mr B’s losses, but I don’t think it could have. This is because any chargeback or Section 75 claim under the Consumer Credit Act had no reasonable prospect of success in this situation. The payments were being made to a legitimate merchant which would have been able to demonstrate it provided the services as intended, so a chargeback would have failed. I also don’t think a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act would have succeeded. This is because Mr B was unfortunately dealing with scammers, which would break the relevant ‘debtor- creditor-supplier chain’ needed in this instance. I appreciate this will likely come as a disappointment to Mr B, however, in the circumstances, I do not consider it would be fair and reasonable to ask NewDay to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Aleya Khanom Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --