Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against NewDay Ltd (trading as John Lewis Partnership Card)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B paid £127.81 to car rental firm H for an insurance product he claims he did not knowingly purchase, having already had adequate insurance cover. He disputed the charge with his credit card issuer NewDay, requesting recovery via chargeback or Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. NewDay initially temporarily credited the amount but then re-debited it, declining to pursue either recovery route. The ombudsman found that while NewDay's initial Section 75 analysis was incorrect (the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship did exist), neither the chargeback nor Section 75 claim had a viable prospect of success because H provided signed paperwork showing Mr B's agreement to the insurance purchase, leaving insufficient evidence of breach or misrepresentation. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that NewDay acted fairly in assessing both the chargeback and Section 75 routes. Although the ombudsman disagreed with NewDay's initial view that Section 75 requirements were not met (finding the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship did exist), this disagreement caused no loss to Mr B because neither route had a viable prospect of success. H's signed defence documentation showing Mr B's agreement to the insurance purchase meant there was insufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr B's frustration with H's practices but clarified that the review concerned only whether NewDay acted fairly in applying the relevant card scheme and consumer credit rules, not whether H's practices were appropriate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website