Not upheld: Persistent overdraft use complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as Argos

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained that Argos unfairly suspended his credit card account due to persistent debt rules. Mr P had agreed in June 2024 to pay 2.5x minimum payment to manage persistent debt, but failed to maintain this arrangement from November 2024 onwards. After the account was suspended in December 2024, Argos lifted it in May 2025 on condition Mr P continued the increased payments. However, Mr P again made only minimum payments in May and June 2025, leading to a second permanent suspension. Mr P argued he was vulnerable due to family bereavement and overseas travel, but had not informed Argos of these circumstances. The ombudsman found the suspension was fair as Mr P failed to comply with the agreed arrangement and did not communicate his circumstances to Argos.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr P was in persistent debt and had agreed to pay 2.5x minimum payment in June 2024. Mr P failed to maintain this arrangement, making only minimum payments from November 2024 onwards. The first suspension in December 2024 was fair. Although Argos lifted the suspension in May 2025, Mr P again failed to maintain the required payment level in May and June 2025, leading to the second suspension. Critically, Mr P did not inform Argos of his overseas travel, family bereavement, or health issues during the March 2025 calls or at any other time evidenced in system notes. The ombudsman could not hold Argos responsible for Mr P being away when communications were sent, as Argos was unaware of this. While empathising with Mr P's difficult circumstances, the ombudsman found the suspension was fair to help Mr P avoid further persistent debt.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website