NewDay Ltd and Persistent Debt:

Over the past few years, UK credit card customers have received waves of letters warning them that they’re in “persistent debt.” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) introduced rules requiring lenders to step in when a customer pays more in interest than toward their actual balance for over 18 months. In principle, it’s a sound consumer protection rule.

But what happens when you’ve been repaying more than required, trying to do the right thing—and you’re still punished under the policy?

That’s what happened to me with NewDay Ltd, a credit provider responsible for cards like Aqua, Marbles, and Opus. This is my experience—and why I believe it calls into question how these policies are being applied.

 

My Strategy: Paying More Than Required

More recently, I have changed my focus to £150 plus an additional payment of £50 each month—a plan that’s both favourable to credit scores and genuinely reduces my balance faster. I’ve never missed a payment, and my account has remained active, with my balance steadily declining over time.

Prior to this, my rule of thumb was simple: Interest × 2 = Monthly Payment. If the interest on my statement was around £75, I’d make a payment of at least £150. This ensured I wasn’t just servicing interest—I was actively repaying my debt.

Yet, because these payments sit between the minimum (£150) and NewDay’s recommended boosted payment (£300+), they’ve labelled me as being in “persistent debt.” Despite paying more than the minimum and steadily reducing my balance, NewDay’s system treats me no differently than someone stuck paying the absolute bare minimum. That’s neither accurate nor fair.

 

 

A Forced Plan, Not a Conversation

After years of regular repayments and consistent balance reduction, NewDay forced my account into what they call a PayDown Plan—even though, according to the FCA, these plans are supposed to be conversational, not compulsory. Here’s what I was presented with:

• £139.92/month over 3 years, with £1,771.73 in interest
• £118.95/month over 4 years, with £2,444.21 in interest

Both payments are lower than what I already pay voluntarily—yet both would lock me into paying significantly more in interest over time.

Their logic? That this plan would help me “escape” persistent debt. But the irony is obvious: these plans cost more, take longer, and actually reduce my monthly payments—which, if anything, slows my debt clearance.

 

 

When I Challenged It — The Goalposts Shifted

After I raised a formal complaint about being forced onto a PayDown Plan despite my regular and meaningful repayments, NewDay didn’t call or engage in a discussion.

Instead, the next letter I received included a new demand: I’d need to make a one-off payment of over £1,000 to bring my account out of persistent debt. That’s three times more than the additional payment they had suggested in their letter just the month prior.

This jump wasn’t explained. No personalised review of my account. No acknowledgement that I’ve never missed a payment. Just a demand—and a rejection of my initial complaint. I’ve since submitted a counter-complaint, but based on past experience, I don’t expect much. My concern is that NewDay appears to be more focused on compliance optics and revenue than truly acting in the customer’s best interest.

 

 

A Fair Question: Who Really Benefits?

The question here is simple but important: Who is really benefiting from these persistent debt plans?

Because NewDay stands to earn more interest from me on their proposed 3- or 4-year PayDown Plans than they would if I continue repaying £150 + £50 each month, it’s hard not to see this as a profit-maximising move rather than a protective one.

If the point of the FCA’s rules is to reduce the interest people pay and help them become debt-free sooner, how does it make sense to pressure them into a slower, more expensive repayment plan?

Worse still, by lowering the monthly amount, NewDay’s plans actually go against the stated FCA principle of “effective intervention.” I’m paying more now than either of their “solutions” would require—and that’s somehow a problem?

 

 

Persistent Debt Policies: In Need of Review

Lenders argue that they’re simply following regulation. But how those regulations are applied matters. The FCA guidance doesn’t force a customer onto a repayment plan if they continue to meet at least the minimum payments. It encourages lenders to help the customer—not punish them.

NewDay has made no effort to speak with me by phone. No tailored options were offered. No one reviewed the real-time behaviour of my account. Instead, they’ve applied a mechanical policy that ignores actual customer conduct.

For other borrowers in similar situations, this should be a red flag. These rules were meant to support responsible borrowing—not override it with plans that benefit the lender more than the customer.

 

 

The Bottom Line

I’ve tried to clear my NewDay balance with consistency and good financial habits. But NewDay’s actions suggest they’re more interested in ticking regulatory boxes (and collecting interest) than rewarding customer responsibility.

I’m sharing my story not just to push back—but to ask regulators, consumer advocates, and other customers:

• Should responsible customers be forced into more expensive plans?
• Should persistent debt remedies result in lower payments but higher interest?
• And are some lenders using these policies to quietly earn more, all while claiming to help?

I’m still waiting on a fair resolution. But I hope this experience makes it clear: persistent debt policy needs proper oversight, empathy, and reform—because customers deserve to be seen, not processed.