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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • miniphernalia
    • By miniphernalia 7th Sep 15, 6:23 PM
    • 16Posts
    • 3Thanks
    miniphernalia
    Nationwide don't know difference between Sec 75 and Chargeback or it me?
    • #1
    • 7th Sep 15, 6:23 PM
    Nationwide don't know difference between Sec 75 and Chargeback or it me? 7th Sep 15 at 6:23 PM
    Hoping you might be able to give a little advice, I will be as brief as I can...

    Spent £3500 on a debit card for a merchant to restore my classic car.


    Got car back home, soon found numerous faults with finish and paint.

    Took car back to merchant to put a list of things right.

    Got back car in rain, day later faults still there plus new ones.

    Asked Nationwide to start a ‘chargeback’, no problem they said.

    Got sent form to sign, sent it back with evidence, photo’s etc.

    I very quickly got a letter back rejecting it because “...[the] VISA Debit Card Chargeback policy does not cover section 75 of the CCA and therefore Nationwide cannot be held responsible...”

    I asked for a call back, initially Visa Disputes at Nationwide did not want to talk to me, but they said “...Its because of the amount you spent, there is a maximum...”

    I asked what it was, Nationwide said it depends, “...we would also only give you a certain amount back...”, how much I asked – “...I don’t have those figures.” What is the maximum amount then? – “I don’t have that information.”

    I am at a loss as I thought the VISA card and the chargeback rules would protect me in this instance, I don’t have a credit card to use, not needed one in years.

    Hope you can help,


    thanks in advance
Page 2
    • tomtontom
    • By tomtontom 13th Sep 15, 6:25 PM
    • 7,199 Posts
    • 16,351 Thanks
    tomtontom
    Sounds like poor workmanship to me rather than faulty paint ! No cover for that under Chargeback regulations.
    Originally posted by meer53
    Yes, there is - a chargeback is possible where there is a dispute over quality of service.

    Perhaps you should read the chargeback guidelines issued by Visa?
    • themull1
    • By themull1 13th Sep 15, 6:46 PM
    • 4,197 Posts
    • 4,113 Thanks
    themull1
    i used chargeback to claim a refund of a substandard room at a B and B, and for the night after which we didn't use because the room was so dirty, we got a full refund using chargeback but it took ages, approx 8 weeks.
    • themull1
    • By themull1 13th Sep 15, 6:46 PM
    • 4,197 Posts
    • 4,113 Thanks
    themull1
    So that was a dispute over the quality of service.
    • meer53
    • By meer53 14th Sep 15, 9:56 AM
    • 8,935 Posts
    • 12,974 Thanks
    meer53
    Yes, there is - a chargeback is possible where there is a dispute over quality of service.

    Perhaps you should read the chargeback guidelines issued by Visa?
    Originally posted by tomtontom
    I've read them, many times

    What chargeback code would be used for quality of service ?
    • tomtontom
    • By tomtontom 14th Sep 15, 11:02 AM
    • 7,199 Posts
    • 16,351 Thanks
    tomtontom
    I've read them, many times

    What chargeback code would be used for quality of service ?
    Originally posted by meer53
    Reason code 53.

    Perhaps your version hasn't been updated since April?
    • miniphernalia
    • By miniphernalia 14th Sep 15, 6:36 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    miniphernalia
    How do i find the visa chargeback guidelines?
    • boo_star
    • By boo_star 14th Sep 15, 7:03 PM
    • 1,317 Posts
    • 667 Thanks
    boo_star
    How do i find the visa chargeback guidelines?
    Originally posted by miniphernalia
    https://www.barclaycard.co.uk/business/files/chargebacks-reason-codes-guide.pdf has the reason codes in an easy to read format.


    http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/chargeback-management-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf is more thorough but a little OTT if you're just interested in the codes.
    • meer53
    • By meer53 14th Sep 15, 10:10 PM
    • 8,935 Posts
    • 12,974 Thanks
    meer53
    Reason code 53.

    Perhaps your version hasn't been updated since April?
    Originally posted by tomtontom
    I don't understand how the OP can claim the paint is defective. From what they've said it sounds more like bad workmanship. I can see why Nationwide are reluctant to dispute this, based on what the OP has said we wouldn't dispute it. I would class this as a quality of service issue which isn't covered by code 53. It would be different if the OP has proof the paint was defective.
    • tomtontom
    • By tomtontom 14th Sep 15, 10:19 PM
    • 7,199 Posts
    • 16,351 Thanks
    tomtontom
    I don't understand how the OP can claim the paint is defective. From what they've said it sounds more like bad workmanship. I can see why Nationwide are reluctant to dispute this, based on what the OP has said we wouldn't dispute it. I would class this as a quality of service issue which isn't covered by code 53. It would be different if the OP has proof the paint was defective.
    Originally posted by meer53
    Honestly, just read the updated information. You're not helping the OP by keeping on with the misinformation, and it's a little bizarre when the reference material is right in front of you
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 14th Sep 15, 10:21 PM
    • 9,579 Posts
    • 10,743 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    I would class this as a quality of service issue which isn't covered by code 53. It would be different if the OP has proof the paint was defective.
    Originally posted by meer53
    Why wouldn't code 53 cover the quality of the service performed?

    M53 Not as described
    the cardholder is stating that the service/goods that they received were either
    defective or not what was originally described to them by the merchant,






    • The-Truth
    • By The-Truth 15th Sep 15, 3:52 AM
    • 470 Posts
    • 532 Thanks
    The-Truth
    Why wouldn't code 53 cover the quality of the service performed?





    Originally posted by shaun from Africa
    IMO it's very much one word against another though. Who's to decide who's right?
    Last edited by The-Truth; 15-09-2015 at 9:23 AM.
    • LilElvis
    • By LilElvis 15th Sep 15, 9:14 AM
    • 3,161 Posts
    • 8,761 Thanks
    LilElvis
    https://www.barclaycard.co.uk/business/files/chargebacks-reason-codes-guide.pdf has the reason codes in an easy to read format.


    http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/chargeback-management-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf is more thorough but a little OTT if you're just interested in the codes.
    Originally posted by boo_star
    The second link relates to non-EU chargeback.
    • tomtontom
    • By tomtontom 15th Sep 15, 11:40 AM
    • 7,199 Posts
    • 16,351 Thanks
    tomtontom
    The second link relates to non-EU chargeback.
    Originally posted by LilElvis
    The rules for reason 53 are identical though - that's what happened in April, the EU rules were brought in line with the US ones
    • tomtontom
    • By tomtontom 15th Sep 15, 11:41 AM
    • 7,199 Posts
    • 16,351 Thanks
    tomtontom
    IMO it's very much one word against another though. Who's to decide who's right?
    Originally posted by The-Truth
    The bank, on the balance of probabilities - same as in a civil court.
    • miniphernalia
    • By miniphernalia 19th Sep 15, 9:03 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    miniphernalia
    I don't understand how the OP can claim the paint is defective. From what they've said it sounds more like bad workmanship. I can see why Nationwide are reluctant to dispute this, based on what the OP has said we wouldn't dispute it. I would class this as a quality of service issue which isn't covered by code 53. It would be different if the OP has proof the paint was defective.
    Originally posted by meer53
    I have had several impartial people look at the photos and to look at the car in person who have confirmed not only the application of the paint was done poorly but in places a paint reaction has occured called solvevnt burst which is a paint defect, it happens when the painter badly mixes the paint with not enough thinners, the solvent cannot escape the too thick paint, the gas builds up under the paint then pops like fizzy pop and leaves tiny dotty dips, also there are contaminants under the paint which has caused silicon fish eyes, this is both poor workmanship in bad prep which has then caused defective paint.
    • tomtontom
    • By tomtontom 19th Sep 15, 11:18 AM
    • 7,199 Posts
    • 16,351 Thanks
    tomtontom
    It sounds like you have more than enough information to pursue a claim mini. As above I would follow the bank's complaint procedure, and if no joy there you can take it to the ombudsman or small claims.
    • wealdroam
    • By wealdroam 19th Sep 15, 11:27 AM
    • 18,650 Posts
    • 15,551 Thanks
    wealdroam
    I have had several impartial people look at the photos and to look at the car in person who have confirmed not only the application of the paint was done poorly but in places a paint reaction has occured called solvevnt burst which is a paint defect, it happens when the painter badly mixes the paint with not enough thinners, the solvent cannot escape the too thick paint, the gas builds up under the paint then pops like fizzy pop and leaves tiny dotty dips, also there are contaminants under the paint which has caused silicon fish eyes, this is both poor workmanship in bad prep which has then caused defective paint.
    Originally posted by miniphernalia
    It's a bit academic really, but everything you have described here is due to poor workmanship. Nothing you have said indicates that the paint is faulty. Poor mixing, not enough thinners, contaminants... are all indications of poor workmanship.
    • miniphernalia
    • By miniphernalia 15th Jul 17, 10:25 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    miniphernalia
    I have been remiss in not providing an update. Here is a link which explains my success in my case

    http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=114618
    • wealdroam
    • By wealdroam 15th Jul 17, 12:46 PM
    • 18,650 Posts
    • 15,551 Thanks
    wealdroam
    I have been remiss in not providing an update. Here is a link which explains my success in my case

    http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=114618
    Originally posted by miniphernalia
    Thanks for reporting back on this issue.

    All other posts on this thread date from September 2015 where you were asking how to progress this issue.

    You have now produced a FOS document which tells us:
    I issued a provisional decision upholding Mr B’s complaint on 10 March 2010.
    I am struggling to understand this date discrepancy.

    I can only conclude that this document doesn't relate to your case.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 15th Jul 17, 1:06 PM
    • 11,528 Posts
    • 8,665 Thanks
    unholyangel
    Thanks for reporting back on this issue.

    All other posts on this thread date from September 2015 where you were asking how to progress this issue.

    You have now produced a FOS document which tells us:

    I am struggling to understand this date discrepancy.

    I can only conclude that this document doesn't relate to your case.
    Originally posted by wealdroam
    Or that the ombudsman made a typo and it should have been 10 march 2016? Just later in the document, the ombudsman says they require OP to accept the decision by 19 may 2016.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
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

132Posts Today

1,363Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I believe I can boldly go where no twitter poll has gone before https://t.co/HA0jC92gAK

  • OK I'm wilting to public pressure and there will be a star trek captain's poll at some point next week

  • I can get that. My order is 1. Picard 2. Janeway 3. Kirk. Too early to say where Lorca will end up (or would you? https://t.co/kawtCOe9RA

  • Follow Martin