FOS decisions / Running Account Credit
Running Account Credit
Financial Ombudsman Service final decisions, reproduced verbatim from the FOS published decisions register.
Decisions
15
Upheld
1
Not upheld
14
Avg redress
£150
Upheld complaints (1)
Not-upheld complaints (14)
Zopa Bank Limited
DRN-6106516A lender's credit file reporting is accurate where the borrower entered into a payment arrangement that temporarily replaced contractual repayments, even if the borrower misunderstood the terms.
Not upheldApr 2026Decision DRN-6173858
Bank transfer payments are not covered under the Faster Payment Scheme Reimbursement Rules where the dispute is a private civil matter between consumer and seller rather than involving criminal fraud or dishonesty.
Not upheldFeb 2026Decision DRN-6254667
Bank transfer payments for goods not received fall outside the Faster Payment Scheme Reimbursement Rules unless they meet the specific definition of an Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam, which requires deception by a fraudster rather than
Not upheldFeb 2026Decision DRN-5942575
A chargeback can only be raised where strict card scheme conditions are met, and a financial business is not obliged to raise a chargeback unless there is a reasonable prospect of success.
Not upheldHome Retail Group Card Services Limited
DRN-6231921A lender must carry out reasonable and proportionate affordability checks before lending to ensure the borrower can sustainably repay, and must not create an unfair credit relationship.
Not upheldNewDay Ltd
DRN-6207153Lenders must carry out reasonable and proportionate affordability checks before increasing credit limits, assessing whether borrowers can sustainably meet repayments.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6189981
A credit relationship may be unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if the creditor failed to carry out proportionate affordability checks that would have revealed unaffordable lending.
Not upheldDecision DRN-5923712
A Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim against a credit provider is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 where the consumer did not know or could not have known of the cause of action within six years of the credit agreement.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6141836
A credit reporting agency acts fairly when it takes reasonable steps to resolve a merged credit file issue, including providing alternative access methods and explanatory notices, even if it cannot fully separate the files online.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6091973
A creditor may fairly refuse to honour a section 75 claim raised outside the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980, regardless of when the debtor became aware of the underlying problem.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6062216
A creditor is not liable under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act for a supplier's misrepresentations about a timeshare product when the consumer fails to demonstrate reliance on those representations or provide evidence of what was actu
Not upheldDecision DRN-6048410
Lenders must assess affordability proportionately based on loan amount, repayment size, income level, and borrowing pattern, but early-stage lending requires less thorough checks than later loans in a relationship.
Not upheldDecision DRN-6198381
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality including durability, but suppliers have the right to attempt repair before rejecting a complaint.
Not upheldMoneybarn No.1 Limited
DRN-6258425A credit relationship may be unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if the lender failed to carry out proportionate affordability checks that would have revealed irresponsible lending.
Not upheld