Upheld: billing errors, system failures, failure to collect direct debit, duplicate charge, interest rate removal complaint against JAJA Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6165021 of 2026-04-24T00:00:00+00:00. billing errors, system failures, failure to collect direct debit, duplicate charge, interest rate removal complaint against JAJA Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6165021 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | JAJA Finance Limited |
| Product | credit card |
| Claim type | billing errors, system failures, failure to collect direct debit, duplicate charge, interest rate removal |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | JAJA Finance Limited must: (1) Place the initial balance transfer amount of £2,200 back on the promotional interest rate agreed when processed; (2) Place the second amount of £2,200 on the same promotional interest rate; (3) Refund any interest charged because of the promotional rate being removed and adjust the balance of Mrs A's account accordingly. |
Summary
Mrs A complained that JAJA debited a duplicate balance transfer of £2,200 to her account in May 2025 without explanation, and failed to collect her direct debit in June 2025 due to a system error. JAJA had processed Mrs A's requested £2,200 balance transfer twice in November 2024, attempted recovery for six months, and then debited the duplicate amount to her account. The direct debit failure caused Mrs A's promotional interest rate to be removed. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding JAJA's remedies for the direct debit error (fee refunds, credit file correction, £30 compensation) were fair, and that debiting the duplicate balance transfer was reasonable after failed recovery attempts. However, the ombudsman ordered JAJA to reinstate the promotional interest rate on both balance transfer amounts and refund any interest charged due to its removal.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while JAJA made errors, they took reasonable steps to mitigate them. For the direct debit error, JAJA's remedies (fee refunds, credit file correction, £30 compensation, and rate reinstatement) were fair. For the duplicate balance transfer, the ombudsman reasoned that Mrs A should have been aware something was wrong when she received £4,400 instead of £2,200, and that JAJA's six-month recovery attempt before debiting her account was reasonable. The ombudsman was satisfied JAJA notified Mrs A via email at the correct address, despite Mrs A's claim otherwise. The ombudsman concluded that Mrs A, given her careful financial planning, should have reasonably anticipated owing the funds if they could not be recovered.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| JAJA Finance Limited, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website