Section 75 refunds - article discussion

derrick

calumelgol wrote: »

My son bought a new 50cc motorbike in September 08 and when he broke his leg in Oct 08 the bike was stored as per manual.....He got all clear from Doc to go back to work on 5th jan so bike was taken from storage as per manual but the bike would not start....major hastle with retailer so tried section 75 with Lloyds Credit Card but they say as retailer has offered to fix it if I transport it 300 miles to Manchester at my expense they can do nothing for me...cost to receive bike from Manchester from new was £300 + so down and back would be over £600
Motorcycle has only done 250 miles from new so why should I be out of pocket for a purchase not fit for purpose.............

How do I put pressure on Credit Card company to take action as this has been going back and for since Jan 09

Any Advice Gratefully Received Please

Under the Sale of Goods Act, (SoGA), it is up to the seller to stand the delivery costs for faulty goods; -
48B Repair or replacement of the goods; -
(2) If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—


(a) repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;



(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).



However as the bike was purchased more then 6 months ago, the onus will be on you to prove the fault; -
48A Introductory ; -
3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

See WHICH; -
"Six months...and counting; -


If your claim is about a problem that arises within six months of buying the product, it's up to the retailer to prove that the goods were fit for purpose – or 'as described' – when it sold them. It is also responsible for proving that the problem was caused by you (for example, because you had an accident with the item that damaged it). Beyond six months, it's up to you to prove that the problem was the retailer's.
So you may need to prove that the fault was not down to wear and tear or damage you caused, and that the product (or a component) should have lasted longer than it did. To do this you may need an expert's report, for example from an engineer or mechanic."


If the seller requires you to do this, then on proving that you where not at fault, any engineers report will be claimable against the seller, if necessary via the small claims court. You may want to contact the seller in writing,(e-mail is acceptable), and copy to your CC provider, as they are "jointly and severally liable" under Section 75, informing them that you will go through the small claims court if necessary, to do this any engineers report,(expert witness), needs to be an agreed expert with you and the retailer under court rules.

derrick

Garfield00 wrote: »

Shopping online will facing more risk!

What on earth are you on about?

jefffirth

I and many others have bought tickets through bogus sites using credit cards. My mistake was a site called SOS Masterticket, I subsequently noticed was based in Spain although it had a London telephone number. It sounded like Ticketmaster, but it was not that company.
I attempted to to claim a refund through my then Credit Card company(Morgan Stanley) under the Distanced Selling Act, but was told I had to wait until the event had passed and I had not received tickets.
I was told by the credit card company that tickets for events were not covered unless the card company were able to reclaim the payment from the ticket company.
I did in the end get the refund from the credit card company. But it took a huge amount of complaints. Section 75 was never mentioned.
I suspect there are a lot of people who paid for tickets who have not been refunded.
From what you are saying they are now covered by Section 75.

rayanniss

I paid a deposit of 3000 Euros by credit card in July 2007 as a deposit on a property purchase in Spain. The selling price of the property was 285000 Euros.
The property agent has since gone into administration and the purchase never materialised as a result of this and I paid no further money to the agent.
i tried to claim a refund from the credit card company for the deposit but this was declined as the contract was over £30000.
Can it be argued that the deposit is a single item transaction and therefore as a stand alone transaction falls within the section 75 threshold?

derrick

rayanniss wrote: »

I paid a deposit of 3000 Euros by credit card in July 2007 as a deposit on a property purchase in Spain. The selling price of the property was 285000 Euros.
The property agent has since gone into administration and the purchase never materialised as a result of this and I paid no further money to the agent.
i tried to claim a refund from the credit card company for the deposit but this was declined as the contract was over £30000.
Can it be argued that the deposit is a single item transaction and therefore as a stand alone transaction falls within the section 75 threshold?

No, the limits under Section 75 are for goods and services costing between £100-30000. not just the deposit From Which; -
When you can claim against your card company

There are some limitations to when a card company is liable along with the retailer or trader. The goods or services you have bought must have cost between £100 and £30,000.

If we took your "argument" that the deposit was a separate transaction then this part of Section 75 would not apply,(from the same link); -
"However, you don’t have to have paid the full amount on your credit card – the card company is liable even if you made only part of the payment (a deposit, say) on your card. And this part-payment can be as little as £1 (but no more than £25,000)."

So in that example, taking your scenario, you might only be covered for £1. for a purchase of £10000.

agina

hi
i paid a private clamping company via credit card (£495).i believe i was bullied into paying the full amount (towing charges) rather then the £80 required to release the clamp.i am trying to get a refund from barclaycard using section 75 claims but they say that because i used my pin i went into the transaction knowingly and there is no thing they can do.please help

naz101

hi,

im really hoping someone can help me.
in Jan 2008 I bought a brand new bed from the bed shed, but 14months later, i noticed that the frame had cracked and had started to sag.
I contacted the Bed Shed but since the bed was 2 months out of warranty they refused to do anything.
when i contacted trading standards, the bed shed then asked for an independant review of the bed which i was to pay for. Since the bed cost £349.99 I thought I might as well do that. The report stated that the bed frame was not adequately supported and that in his opinion the bed will collapse in the near future. And thats what happened 10 days after receiving the letter.
The bed shed are being an absolute pain so I got in contact with nationwide credit card
I received a reply today saying that as the dispute is more than 120 days old, they will not cover anything under the VISA international rules
any advice will be greatly appreciated as i am now sleeping on the floor!!

alwynross

I ordered TV from an online electrical store. The shop could not supply that model and an unsuitable replacement was suggested. I cancelled the order and was assured a full refund would be posted to my cc in 5 working days. 39 days later I am still battling to get the money back. My CC company initially claimed I was not covered since I cancelled the goods and the issue was between the retailer and me, they helpfully advised I get Legal Advice. The government consumer protection helpline suggested this was nonsence and the CC company was simply trying to fob me off. By law the retailer and CC company are equally responsible for retriving my money. Is this correct and what should I do??
Thanks
A

namuma

I have bought sofa & bed in feb paying 0.5k and then 1.5k just before delivery in April.

Two chairs standing 0n 3 legs. Leather Sofa has shallow area at the head rest.

Retailer (only responded, after a week) can only change the legs, cliaming its not faulty.

Egg is refusing to get involved as the retailer is is trying to fix it.

Any Advice as to how to deal with it please

KTM_Gordo

Here's a quick re-cap of Section 75 and what it's for:

It only covers goods between £100 and £30,000. Several items which together cost more than £100 but individually do not (e.g. 6 items at £25) are not covered.

It's a last resort option - you need to have taken steps to contact the original retailer to get things put right. If goods are faulty, it's the Sale & Supply of Goods to Consumers Act that you need - contact your local Trading Standards department for advice.

You cannot use S75 just because you've changed your mind - there has to be a breach of contract.

Claiming under S75 can take a long time, and you will need to provide proof that the contract has not been satisfactorily executed.

HTH