Partially upheld: refund claim handling; Section 75 liability; chargeback handling complaint against NewDay Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6317719 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. refund claim handling; Section 75 liability; chargeback handling complaint against NewDay Ltd. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6317719 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | NewDay Ltd |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | refund claim handling; Section 75 liability; chargeback handling |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Refund 50% of the amount paid (€805) using the exchange rate applied at time of transaction; rework credit card account removing applicable interest and charges from 1 October 2025; if credit balance results, refund it with simple interest at 8% yearly from date of credit balance to date of payment |
Summary
X complained about NewDay's handling of a refund claim for accommodation booked through an agent for €805 using a NewDay credit card. X experienced significant defects including a flashing bathroom light, water and electricity supply interruptions, and light ingress, but remained at the accommodation throughout the stay. NewDay declined both a chargeback claim and a Section 75 claim. The ombudsman found NewDay was jointly liable under Section 75 as the accommodation provider breached the implied term to perform services with reasonable care and skill. However, since X continued to benefit from the accommodation despite the defects, a 50% refund was ordered rather than a full refund, along with removal of interest and charges from the account.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while a chargeback had insufficient realistic prospect of success under Mastercard rules, NewDay was jointly liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The accommodation provider breached the implied term under Consumer Rights Act 2025 Section 49 to perform services with reasonable care and skill, particularly regarding the significant fault of the non-functioning bathroom. However, since X remained at the accommodation throughout and continued to receive services, a full refund was not appropriate. A 50% reduction fairly reflected the significant reduction in value while recognizing X still benefited from the accommodation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| NewDay Ltd, all decisions | 2,605 | 37% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 25,211 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website