NewDay Ltd · DRN-6259072

The complaint Mrs M complains NewDay Ltd trading as Fluid Credit Card (“Fluid”) recorded adverse information on her credit file. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat it at length here. Mrs M holds a credit card account with Fluid, in March 2025, she contacted Fluid to say her circumstances had changed. It was agreed Fluid would apply a 60-day breathing space to her account, meaning no interest or charges would be applied and Mrs M was required to make reduced monthly payments of £20. In May 2025, Fluid wrote to Mrs M as the breathing space had come to an end and asked that she get in touch. Hearing nothing further, Fluid wrote to Mrs M again in the same month to say it had extended the terms of the arrangement, whereby it wouldn’t apply any charges or fees, as long as she made payments of £20 a month. Fluid didn’t receive a payment by the due date of 2 June 2025, so recorded this as a late payment on Mrs M’s credit file. While Mrs M did make a payment of £20 the next month, she didn’t make up for the shortfall from June 2025. So again, Fluid recorded that Mrs M was behind on her payments. This continued for August and September 2025. Unhappy Fluid was reporting missed payments on her credit file, Mrs M complained. She said Fluid was aware of her circumstances at the time and failed to exercise its duty of care. Fluid doesn’t agree it’s done anything wrong. It says it reported an accurate reflection of Mrs M’s payment history to the credit reference agencies (CRAs). Mrs M consequently referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. One of our Investigator’s looked into what happened and didn’t think Fluid had acted unfairly, so didn’t recommend it do anything further. Mrs M disagreed with our Investigator’s opinion. She said there was no record of Fluid sending the letters it said it had, and that it hadn’t treated her fairly. As the matter wasn’t resolved, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I want to assure Mrs M and Fluid that I’ve reviewed everything on file, alongside taking into consideration the relevant rules and regulations applicable to this complaint, including Consumer Duty. And if I

-- 1 of 3 --

don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. I also want to start by confirming the scope of this decision. I’m conscious Mrs M has raised concerns about the service she’s received from Fluid, since this complaint has been referred to the Financial Ombudsman. Mrs M has also expressed concerns about the closure of her account. I’m limited to considering the complaint Mrs M originally referred to our Service, which Fluid has also responded to. That is, whether Fluid made an error in the information it reported to CRA’s about Mrs M’s credit card between June and September 2025. As such, that is what I’ll be considering within this decision. If Mrs M has other concerns beyond those addressed in this decision, they’d first need to be raised as a complaint with Fluid. Having then received a response from Fluid, should Mrs M remain unhappy she can refer these points as a separate complaint to our Service. Therefore, I won’t comment on these points further. Turning to the information Fluid reported to the CRA’s, while I appreciate this is unlikely to be the answer Mrs M is hoping for, I’ve reached the same conclusions as our Investigator for broadly the same reasons. So, I won’t be directing Fluid to amend what it’s reported on Mrs M’s credit file. I’ve explained why below. Fluid, like all lenders has a responsibility to report accurate up to date information to CRA’s, including a fair reflection of an individual’s payment history. And that’s what I’ve found it did in this instance. Fluid didn’t receive a payment from Mrs M towards the outstanding balance as required by 2 June 2025, so I find it was reasonable to report this as a missed payment. While Mrs M did make payments in July, August and September 2025, these didn’t cover the missed payment from June. So again, I think Fluid was reasonable to report that Mrs M was behind on her payments. I’ve taken into consideration what Mrs M has told us about her circumstances at the time and I’m sorry to hear of the challenges she’s faced. I don’t however find this prevents Fluid from reporting the information it did. While a customer may be struggling to maintain payments for a number of reasons, such as a change in circumstances, vulnerabilities or change in employment, a credit file doesn’t differentiate between these. Rather, it’s purpose is to set out an individual’s payment history. Therefore, as Fluid has reported an accurate reflection of Mrs M’s payments towards her credit card, I can’t say it’s done something wrong. I’m sorry to hear that the reporting of missed payments may have affected Mrs M’s credit score. However, in order to uphold this aspect of Mrs M’s complaint I’d need to be persuaded the sole reason for this was as a result of an error made by Fluid. And here, as Fluid was fair to report the information it did, it would be unfair to say it must remove the adverse information. I’ve taken on board Mrs M’s concerns that she didn’t receive all the letters and statements Fluid says it sent. Here, I need to be persuaded Fluid sent these, rather than Mrs M received them. While it’s possible some may have been lost in the post, from the evidence available I’m satisfied Fluid sent these letters, which is what it was required to do. So, I wouldn’t then say Fluid had done something wrong here. In conclusion, while I appreciate this won’t be the answer Mrs M is hoping for, I haven’t found Fluid acted unreasonably in recording adverse information on her credit file from June

-- 2 of 3 --

to September 2025, as Mrs M wasn’t up to date with her payments. Therefore, I won’t be directing it to do anything differently in resolution of this complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Christopher Convery Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --