Partially upheld: refund claim handling; chargeback and Section 75 claim assessment complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Fluid Credit Card
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6171902 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. refund claim handling; chargeback and Section 75 claim assessment complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Fluid Credit Card. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6171902 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | NewDay Ltd trading as Fluid Credit Card |
| Product | credit card |
| Claim type | refund claim handling; chargeback and Section 75 claim assessment |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Pay an additional £100.00 to Mr L to address distress and inconvenience caused during handling of refund claims (in addition to the £200.00 already paid: £100.00 initial goodwill payment and £100.00 following investigator's view). |
Summary
Mr L purchased a 13-year-old vehicle with 115,000 miles for £2,995.00 using a Fluid credit card and subsequently claimed it was misrepresented (lacking promised full MOT) and defective (faulty turbo). He requested refunds through both chargeback and Section 75 claims. Fluid declined both claims, and the ombudsman found this decision fair because the vehicle advertisement did not reference a full MOT, there was no clear evidence of misrepresentation, and the defects identified in the MOT two months after purchase were consistent with age-related wear rather than pre-existing faults. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding that while Fluid's substantive decisions were fair, their complaint handling caused distress warranting an additional £100.00 payment.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Fluid acted fairly in not progressing the chargeback claim because the available evidence did not support a reasonable prospect of success under Mastercard rules. The vehicle advertisement did not reference a full MOT, and there was insufficient documentary evidence that one was promised. Regarding the turbo, the omission from the advertisement did not constitute a material misrepresentation. Under S75, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of either misrepresentation or breach of contract. Given the vehicle's age (13 years), high mileage (115,000 miles), and price, some wear and deterioration was reasonably expected. The MOT failures identified two months after purchase were consistent with age-related wear rather than defects present at sale. The ombudsman noted that without independent technical evidence clearly establishing the turbo was faulty at point of sale, a S75 claim could not be fairly upheld. However, the ombudsman found Fluid's complaint handling caused distress and inconvenience, warranting additional compensation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| NewDay Ltd trading as Fluid Credit Card, all decisions | 2 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website