Not upheld: chargeback dispute resolution and Section 75 claim settlement; customer service failures complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Aqua

Decision detail

Summary

Ms M complained that Aqua unfairly handled her dispute regarding poor quality car repairs paid via credit card. She sought refunds of original payments to garage S and compensation for additional costs including time spent and storage charges. Aqua raised chargebacks (three defended, one successful for £1,750), reimbursed £3,124.64 for rectification works under Section 75, and offered £500 for service failures. The ombudsman upheld Aqua's decisions, finding the chargeback outcomes reasonable given conflicting evidence and S's defence, the Section 75 settlement fair as repeat performance remedy, and the compensation adequate for acknowledged service shortcomings. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied chargeback scheme rules and Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 law. For chargebacks, Aqua reasonably concluded that with conflicting versions of events and S's defence that works were completed as agreed, progression was unlikely to succeed under the specified reason code. For Section 75, Aqua's reimbursement of rectification costs constituted fair 'repeat performance' remedy under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and full refund of original payments would constitute betterment. Ms M accepted the scope of works before they were carried out, so no misrepresentation was established. Consequential losses for time spent were not recoverable as no financial loss was proven beyond costs already refunded.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website