NewDay Ltd · DRN-6086442

The complaint Mr K complains that NewDay Ltd (NDL) provided poor service and incorrect information about a money transfer that caused significant impact on Mr K’s emotional and physical health. I am recommending that the complaint be upheld, meaning NDL need to do something to put things right. I’ve explained below what I have found. Having thought about all the information available, I’ve reached the same overall conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. What happened Mr K holds a credit card with NDL. In September 2025, Mr K completed a money transfer at a promotional rate using his NDL credit card. Shortly after this, Mr K attempted a second set of money transfers, however this did not go through. Mr K contacted NDL and was told this was because he can only complete one money transfer every 30 days. Mr K explained the banking app said he could complete one per day but was told by the advisors he spoke to this wasn’t correct. Mr K said his call had been cold transferred by NDL whilst he was trying to sort things out. Because of the information he was given, Mr K explained he had to make other financial credit arrangements he would have preferred not to including borrowing from family, and this caused him significant stress. This stress and worry was increased due to a recent serious health condition, where Mr K was advised to avoid stress. As Mr K was unhappy with what had happened, he complained to NDL. NDL upheld the complaint. It explained Mr K had a poor customer journey and was given misinformation. NDL offered £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. NDL also explained multiple money transfers can be made each month, as long as the total amount, including any fees remains within 90% of the total available credit limit. NDL explained the second set of transfers failed due to the credit limit available to Mr K. After a further issue, NDL later offered to increase the distress and inconvenience to £75. Investigator’s outcome Mr K disagreed with the outcome and brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service where it was passed to one of our investigators. The investigator upheld the complaint. They explained a total payment of £150 for distress and inconvenience is fair due to the increased impact on Mr K because of his health situation but wouldn’t recommend more as Mr K would not have been able to make the second transfer even if the right information had been given. Mr K disagreed this was fair and as such, I’ve been asked to review the complaint to make a final decision.

-- 1 of 3 --

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Firstly I’m sorry to hear about the stress, worry and impact Mr K explained the situation had on him at a very difficult time and I hope he has been recovering well. I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on those points which are most relevant to my decision. If I don’t comment on a specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it onboard and think about it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. Mr K explained he was given wrong information that caused him significant stress, at a time where he said he was medically advised to avoid stress, and this had a big impact on the enjoyment of his holiday that he explained was arranged because of the recent health situation he’d faced. It isn’t in dispute that NDL gave Mr K incorrect information. NDL have since explained the change in terms was new at the time, but its staff should ensure they are up to date on changes to avoid giving out incorrect information. It also isn’t in dispute that Mr K’s questions and calls weren’t handled in the best way when being transferred to incorrect departments. Having thought about what happened, and what Mr K explained about his health situation, this will have caused more impact than it would have on someone not suffering the same health situation as Mr K. However, Mr K would not have been able to complete the second money transfer regardless of the information he was given due to the credit limit. This is relevant because Mr K would have also had to have made other financial arrangements if he was given the correct information about why the second transfer couldn’t be made. I acknowledge Mr K said he was relying on this finance being available, however he would not have been able to benefit from the second transfer regardless and as such would still have had to find alternative arrangements as he did, meaning his travel plans and enjoyment of them may well have still been affected causing him the increased stress that he suffered because the second transfer didn’t go through. Having thought about everything that’s been explained by Mr K and what I have from NDL, I’m persuaded that the £150 recommended by the investigator to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by NDL’s misinformation and service on the phone is fair in this case. I appreciate Mr K does not agree, however I’ve explained above why I’m persuaded that the impact of the wrong information and service received would have been increased due to his health condition and stress levels, however if he’d been provided with the correct explanation, he still wouldn’t have been able to make the second transfer. Because of this, Mr K would likely have still had to make alternative borrowing arrangements and may well still have encountered increased worry and stress levels at an already difficult time. I also appreciate Mr K has explained this situation affected his family, and whilst I acknowledge this, I can only consider distress and inconvenience caused directly to Mr K.

-- 2 of 3 --

Putting things right To put things right, NDL must pay Mr K a total of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This includes any amount that may have already been paid. This is fair because of the higher level of impact the service Mr K received had on him at a difficult time. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Mr K’s complaint. NewDay Limited must pay Mr K a total of £150 as outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Jack Evans Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --