Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Argos

Decision detail

Summary

Ms A complained that Argos unfairly reported a late payment marker for August 2025 when she was unable to make her minimum payment due to being a victim of a scam. Ms A argued that she had previously made overpayments that covered missed payments without receiving adverse credit markers, and that this established practice should have continued. The ombudsman found that Ms A's previous overpayments had covered Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) transactions which do not require monthly minimum payments, whereas the August 2025 payment was for traditional purchases requiring contractual monthly repayments. Argos was therefore entitled to demand the August payment and was not obligated to apply the July overpayment to it. The ombudsman concluded that Argos took reasonable steps to contact Ms A and correctly reported the accurate late payment marker, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between BNPL transactions and traditional purchases. BNPL transactions do not require monthly minimum payments during the deferred period, which is why no late payment markers were recorded when Ms A made lump sum payments in October 2024 covering only BNPL items. However, by July 2025, the account consisted of traditional purchases requiring contractual monthly minimum repayments. The August 2025 payment was therefore legitimately due, and Argos was not obligated to apply the July overpayment to August's traditional purchase balance. Argos took reasonable steps to contact Ms A about the missed payment and accurately reported the late payment marker, which is a true reflection of the missed payment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website