NewDay Ltd · DRN-6163040

The complaint Mr S complains about the outcome of a claim he made to NewDay Ltd trading as Pulse Credit Card (NewDay). What happened In May 2025, Mr S paid £245.37 using his NewDay credit card to purchase some flights through an online travel agency, who I’ll call O. O offers tiered membership at a cost to its customers which provides additional benefits. At the time of booking, Mr S appeared to have one level of the membership (tier 1) and started a trial period of another level of membership (tier 2). Mr O says that he attempted to cancel the flights and due to his tier 2 membership benefits, he should have received a refund of the money spent on the flights. He says he took this up with O in the first instance, but it did not assist him. Mr S then raised a claim with NewDay regarding this matter. NewDay first considered the matter as a chargeback dispute and initiated a dispute. O defended the dispute and NewDay decided not to proceed with the dispute any further. Mr S then asked for the claim to be considered under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Section 75). NewDay considered this but said that as the necessary debtor-creditor-supplier (DCS) relationship required to make a claim under Section 75 wasn’t present, it couldn’t consider the claim. Mr S brought his complaint to our service. He said he paid for tier 2 membership at a cost of £5 per month specifically because it should allow you to cancel two flights per year and receive a refund. He asked for a refund of the cost of the flights and the membership fee which he had paid for 5 months. Our investigator reviewed matters and found that the flights booked were non-refundable and the membership Mr S held at the time of booking didn’t entitle him to receive a refund if he cancelled the flights. So, she found that the chargeback dispute would have had little prospect of success if taken forward. Our investigator looked at Section 75 and said that although the relevant DCS relationship was in place for us to consider the issue of whether Mr S’s membership should have allowed for a refund, she couldn’t find any evidence to support a claim for misrepresentation or breach of contract. Mr S disagreed and asked for an ombudsman to consider his complaint. He said he had enrolled in the tier 2 membership on the day he booked the flights. He said he attempted to cancel the membership but the sales representative at O said his flights would be protected. He said any restriction concerning flights being booked after the trial period of the membership had ended was not in place at the time that he booked his flights. So, the complaint has now 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

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I would like to start by saying that I have provided a brief summary of the events that occurred. I intend no discourtesy by this and can assure both parties that I have taken all the information provided into consideration when reaching a decision on this complaint. In this decision, I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on a specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to consider it, but because I don’t think I need to comment in order to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Our rules allow me to do this, and this reflects the nature of our service as a free and informal alternative to the courts. I also think it’s worth clarifying that I am unable to comment on the actions of O in this decision. I am only able to consider whether NewDay has acted in a fair and reasonable manner when Mr S approached it for assistance with his dispute against O. When considering what’s fair and reasonable, I’m only considering whether NewDay acted in line with its obligations as the entity that has issued the credit card he used to make payment. Chargeback Chargeback is a voluntary scheme under which settlement disputes are resolved between card issuers and merchants, under the relevant card scheme. A card issuer will review the claim against the possible reasons for a chargeback and look at whether it would be able to make a successful claim for the customer. Card issuers do not have to submit claims and usually will only do so, if it is likely to be successful. We don’t expect them to raise a claim if there is little prospect of success. In this particular case, when Mr S raised a claim with it, NewDay proceeded with a chargeback dispute. O defended the dispute and at this point, NewDay would be required to review the information it had received and decide whether it still had reasonable prospects of success if it were to take the dispute further. I have reviewed the merchant evidence and can see the flights were non-refundable. There were add-on options available at the time of booking which could have provided protection in the event a customer did want to cancel the flights for any reason; however Mr S didn’t take these. As far as I can see from the confirmation emails, Mr S had tier 1 membership at the time of booking and this did not provide the “cancel 2 flights for any reason” benefit. This particular benefit was only available with tier 2 membership. Mr S says he took out the trial membership for tier 2 on the day of booking, however O’s website is clear in that “flights must be booked in the app after your free trial” for this benefit to apply. I understand and appreciate that Mr S has sent us evidence to confirm his belief that these terms differ to what was in place at the time that he booked and took out the trial membership. I can assure Mr S that I have reviewed the terms that were applicable at the time that he booked and these are clear about this benefit only applying after the trial period had ended. I have also listened to the phone call Mr S had with O and in this call, the representative did say that he would need to pay the membership fee to obtain the cancellation benefit. So, I don’t find Mr S was given incorrect information during this call. Having considered this information I find that at the time of booking; Mr S did not have the cancellation benefits of the tier 2 membership available to him. This means that the dispute had little to no prospects of success if NewDay had proceeded with it. I therefore find that it acted reasonably in declining to take the dispute any further and has therefore, treated Mr S fairly with regard to his chargeback dispute.

-- 2 of 3 --

Section 75 Section 75 allows – in certain circumstances - for a creditor (NewDay) to be jointly and severally liable for any claim by the debtor (Mr S) of breach of contract or misrepresentation made by a supplier of goods and/or services (O). NewDay has said it cannot consider a claim under Section 75 as the relevant DCS relationship is not in place. I find that as the basis of Mr S’s complaint is that he had a separate membership with O which entitled him to a refund if he cancelled the flights, the relevant DCS relationship is in place. So, I’m satisfied that the relevant criteria for making a claim under this legislation has been met. I have gone on to consider what would have happened, had NewDay gone on to consider a claim under Section 75. Mr S is not saying that the flights or membership were misrepresented to him at the time that he took them out, so I don’t need to consider this. When looking at whether there was a breach of contract, I need to consider the terms in place at the time of booking. Tier 1 membership (which Mr S had at the relevant time) offers no cancellation benefits and he did not purchase any additional add-ons at the time of booking which would have provided him with this benefit. Based on the terms applicable at the time of booking, Mr S’s flights were non-refundable, and he was in the trial period of tier 2 membership which did not provide the cancellation benefit either. So, I do not find that his contract has been breached in any way. Therefore, despite my disagreement with the reasons why NewDay declined to look at a claim under Section 75, I find that even if it had, the claim would have been declined. As such, Mr S has not suffered a loss by this error which means overall, I find NewDay has handled Mr S’s claim in a fair and reasonable manner. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold Mr S’s complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Pulse Credit Card. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Vanisha Patel Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --