Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Wendy
    • By Former MSE Wendy 7th Oct 08, 2:00 PM
    • 868Posts
    • 1,782Thanks
    Former MSE Wendy
    0 WOW
    Section 75 refunds - article discussion
    • #1
    • 7th Oct 08, 2:00 PM
    0 WOW
    Section 75 refunds - article discussion 7th Oct 08 at 2:00 PM

    This discussion relates to the Section 75 refunds article


    Click reply to discuss.
    Last edited by MSE Archna; 10-06-2010 at 4:41 PM.
Page 67
    • JamieTom
    • By JamieTom 11th Jan 18, 1:19 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    JamieTom
    Hi,

    I bought a phone for my wife on a Santander Credit Card April 2016. This phone has now gone faulty with a boot loop issue - as this is a known issue on this model phone LG has extended the warranty on this phone so I sent it in for repair. LG has declined a warranty repair as they found evidence of "Foreign Contaminant Ingress" on the mainboard and said that they will not repair as a result. This phone was bought new and factory sealed and has been in a case most of the time and has never been dropped or exposed to water. Speaking to LG they said that Foreign Contaminant Ingress can occur through normal wear and tear but will still invalidate the warranty.

    I called Santander and they said I am not covered by Section 75 as I purchased the phone for someone else's benefit and not mine? This is despite the fact that my wife is a named secondary user on the credit card - they advised that because it was purchased using my card number and not her secondary card number it would not be covered under section 75.

    Does anyone know if the above is correct or are they trying to get out of it?

    TIA,

    Jamie Tomlinson
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 11th Jan 18, 5:59 PM
    • 51,391 Posts
    • 21,761 Thanks
    grumbler
    I called Santander and they said I am not covered by Section 75 as I purchased the phone for someone else's benefit and not mine? This is despite the fact that my wife is a named secondary user on the credit card - they advised that because it was purchased using my card number and not her secondary card number it would not be covered under section 75.

    Does anyone know if the above is correct or are they trying to get out of it?
    Originally posted by JamieTom
    This is correct.
    What's not covered by Section 75? >> Goods/services paid for by a secondary cardholder

    Why did you tell them?

    That said, so called 'ingress' is a common excuse for avoiding warranty obligations. You still can use your Consumer Rights against the supplier (not LG), but they are likely to use the same excuse.

    Ultimately you can go by the Small Claims Court route, but if you don't win you lose the initial claim fee.

    Also, Mobiles and Consumer Rights boards are better places to ask such questions.
    Last edited by grumbler; 11-01-2018 at 6:04 PM.
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • JamieTom
    • By JamieTom 12th Jan 18, 11:08 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    JamieTom
    This is correct.
    >> Goods/services paid for by a secondary cardholder

    Why did you tell them?
    Originally posted by grumbler
    To be honest I happened to mention that I bought the phone for my wife while I was explaining the purchase as I hadn't appreciated that clause applied. I purchased the phone on the primary card number as the primary cardholder for my wife who is a secondary cardholder with a secondary card number? Seems like a bit of a 'get-out' clause to me. Not sure if the guy made notes (probably did) otherwise I could try again? We were both named on the account and it was purchased for our use - would an appeal to ombudsman work?
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 12th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    • 51,391 Posts
    • 21,761 Thanks
    grumbler
    In fact S75 is an old law, that, when formally applied to CC purchases, makes no sense whatsoever. That's why CC companies use every possible excuse for avoiding the nonsensical obligations.
    They are liable in the same degree as the supplier of the faulty goods, not more. If you think you have a winning case, you can confidently use the Consumer Rights Act and Small Claims Court.
    The ingress is hardly an 'inherent' fault. So your only argument is 'not fit for purpose'. Make LG to confirm in writing "that Foreign Contaminant Ingress can occur through normal wear and tear" - and I am pretty sure this will be a sufficient proof for the SCC.
    Possibly, such confirmation will persuade the supplier if they refuse to replace/refund under the CRA and you threaten them with SCC actions.
    Last edited by grumbler; 12-01-2018 at 10:51 PM.
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • DMBRADLEY
    • By DMBRADLEY 19th Jan 18, 3:01 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    DMBRADLEY
    Good afternoon, I am purchasing a fifth wheel caravan for 61k and the company want a 50% deposit before they start production. I understand that I will not be protected under section 75 as the total value of the item is 61k, hence over the 30k limit. Will I be able to chargeback the deposit if the company goes bust or if I do not get the goods, if I pay by debit card?
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 20th Jan 18, 9:50 PM
    • 51,391 Posts
    • 21,761 Thanks
    grumbler
    >> Visa, Mastercard & Amex Chargeback
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

228Posts Today

1,886Users online

Martin's Twitter