WorldPay (UK) Limited · DRN-6168327

The complaint L, a limited company, complains that WorldPay (UK) Limited has incorrectly billed it for services related to its account. What happened L had been accruing outstanding payments associated with its merchant services account with WorldPay. The account attracted two sets of payments, leading to two separate bills: one for the use of WorldPay’s card acquiring services, the other for its payment platform gateway. L had a working direct debit for the acquiring services, but not for the gateway. This led to payment arrears for L’s gateway use. Our service looked at a previous case from L, which also broadly related to arrears. This case was resolved in June 2022. In 2025, L complained to WorldPay again about the outstanding balance, confused as to how it had continued to increase, and believing there to be an issue with WorldPay’s systems. WorldPay explained two direct debits were required for L’s account, but that L only had one in place, and that this had led to the payment arrears. WorldPay offered to write-off 18 months of fees – around £431 – as a resolution to the complaint. L’s director agreed to this, but was still confused about the services L was being asked to pay for, and the means by which payment was to be taken. And so, L brought its complaint to our service. Our Investigator found the fees applied since the complaint in June 2022 to be in line with the original agreement. He said that the agreement reached between L and WorldPay for 18 months of fees to be discounted from the total amount owed was fair. L didn’t accept the view and asked for an Ombudsman’s decision. 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. Having done so I don’t uphold this complaint. I realise this will be disappointing for L’s director, so I’ve set out my reasoning below. As mentioned, our service looked at a previous case from L, which also related to arrears. As a result, my decision focuses only on fees accrued since the case was resolved in June 2022. L has also raised concerns about being overcharged, and how its more recent payments affect the overall amount owed. But, as WorldPay hasn’t had a chance to address those concerns first, this decision only relates to the direct debit issues which have led to WorldPay’s claim that L has built up arrears on its account.

-- 1 of 2 --

I realise that I’ve summarised this complaint in less detail than the parties, particularly L, and I’ve done so using my own words. I’ve concentrated on what I consider to be the key issues. The rules that govern this service allow me to do so. But this doesn’t mean that I’ve not considered everything that both parties have given to me. And although I’ve read and considered the whole file, I’ll keep my comments to what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on a specific point, it’s not because I haven’t considered it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach the right outcome. L has told our service it wasn’t clear how WorldPay calculated the charges. It noted that two direct debits were required, but only one had been set up. It also said it had already settled part of the debt following our service’s involvement in 2022. Our service previously found the cost of the payment gateway to have been made clear to L, and so I won’t revisit that point here. Instead, I’ve reviewed the arrears listings provided by Worldpay and I can find no issue with it requesting these fees from July 2022, which is the earliest date open to me to review, up to and including August 2025, which is the period this decision spans. WorldPay has explained the payment highlighted by L was used to repay a chargeback debt from 2022, and this likely explains the difference between what L expected to owe and what Worldpay has said it owes. From September 2025, WorldPay began to charge L a higher amount. And, while WorldPay has offered an explanation in that regard, its fairness has not been considered by this service. Should L wish to explore this further, it will need to discuss the increase with WorldPay directly, giving WorldPay a chance to resolve its concerns. During our service’s involvement in this case, WorldPay found that the issue with L’s second direct debit had been caused by a problem with WorldPay’s systems. This meant L’s gateway fees were not taken by direct debit when they should have been. As mentioned, I’ve seen no evidence to persuade me the fees weren’t payable, but it remains a level of inconvenience has been caused to L by this issue. I’ve thought about whether the discount offered by WorldPay does enough to make up for the inconvenience and I’m persuaded it does. I say this as, for the reasons covered in this decision, I’m satisfied Worldpay hasn’t unfairly asked L for its gateway fees for the period this decision covers. Our service has given L a list of the arrears for review, and I note WorldPay has asked it to contact its collections team to settle the amount, as well as set up a direct debit. And while it is for WorldPay to decide whether to offer L a designated account handler to help it manage its payments in future, its offer to deduct 18 months of fees from the total amount owed by L is a fair way to settle this complaint. I hope my decision provides clarity to L’s director around why WorldPay is entitled to request L pays the outstanding amount. However, if L has concerns about the specific amounts WorldPay has charged for the gateway service more recently, it should query this with Worldpay directly. And so for the reasons given, I do not require WorldPay to do anything further in relation to the matters covered in this decision. My final decision My final decision is I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask L to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. James Akehurst Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --