Partially upheld: refund handling, chargeback process, Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as John Lewis Mastercard
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6367128 of 2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00. refund handling, chargeback process, Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim complaint against NewDay Ltd trading as John Lewis Mastercard. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6367128 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | NewDay Ltd trading as John Lewis Mastercard |
| Product | credit card |
| Claim type | refund handling, chargeback process, Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | NewDay Ltd trading as John Lewis Mastercard must: (1) Pay Mrs M £215.36 for the hooks and ball tops; (2) Rework the account to remove any interest and charges associated with this amount from when NewDay re-debited the account in January 2026; (3) If the account balance goes into credit, pay simple interest at time-weighted average Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point on that amount. |
Summary
Mrs M purchased brass poles, hooks and curtain ball tops from company H for £665.36 using her NewDay credit card. Upon delivery, she discovered the poles were a different colour to the accessories and requested a refund. H agreed to refund £215.36 for the returned hooks and ball tops but refused to refund the poles as they had been cut to bespoke size. NewDay raised a chargeback for the full amount, but H defended it on the basis that Mrs M had not returned the poles. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, requiring NewDay to refund £215.36 for the returned items but finding that NewDay acted fairly in not pursuing the chargeback for the poles, as Mrs M had not returned them (a mandatory requirement under card scheme rules) and the poles were non-refundable under H's terms. The ombudsman also found no breach of contract or misrepresentation under Section 75, as H had not promised an exact colour match and had disclosed that variations could occur.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that NewDay acted fairly in not pursuing the chargeback for the poles because: (1) Mrs M did not return the poles, which is a mandatory requirement under Mastercard chargeback rules for goods not as described; (2) H's terms and conditions made the bespoke cut poles non-refundable in any case; (3) regarding Section 75, while the three-metre pole met the £100 threshold, there was no misrepresentation as H never stated the pole would be an exact colour match to other items, and the website explicitly stated variations could occur; (4) there was no breach of contract as the colour variation between separate items does not constitute a failure to meet satisfactory quality standards, and the pole itself was not defective or misdescribed. However, NewDay should refund the £215.36 for the hooks and ball tops as Mrs M had returned these items and H had agreed to refund them.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| NewDay Ltd trading as John Lewis Mastercard, all decisions | 1 | 50% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website