Section 75 refunds - article discussion

derrick

magsharker wrote: »

purchased mobile home for £60,000, firm went bust, paid original deposit on credit card, can I claim back up to £30,000

No, the value has to be between £100 - 30,000.
And I don't think "homes" are covered under Section 75 anyway??

johnfthetraveller

derrick wrote: »

No, the value has to be between £100 - 30,000.
And I don't think "homes" are covered under Section 75 anyway??

MSE's main article says that land is excluded, which I think is incorrect. See my post #127 in this thread.

yellowplum

I noted two things are missing from the article; first is the fact that you don't have to pay for the entire item on a credit card, for example if you where purchasing a car to value of £30k you can pay the deposit using a credit card and still have cover under section 75.

Second is what to do when the credit card company doesn't reply - or you achieve nothing from anyone by writing. What are the next steps afer this?

me_and

yellowplum wrote: »

I noted two things are missing from the article; first is the fact that you don't have to pay for the entire item on a credit card, for example if you where purchasing a car to value of £30k you can pay the deposit using a credit card and still have cover under section 75.

Yes it is: there's a question about half-way down on "What if I only pay the deposit on the credit card?"

Second is what to do when the credit card company doesn't reply - or you achieve nothing from anyone by writing. What are the next steps afer this?

That's also there, at the bottom of the section titled "How do I make a claim".

chessmaster

Hi all,
I engaged in a project with an Indian company to build me a website in June 2008. I paid using my Virgin (MBNA) credit card through a third party called Guru.com who took the payments and paid the supplier direct.
The project was for a total cost of £25,650 of which I paid in phase’s up to the total amount of £17000. The website was supposed to take 4 months to complete which should have been the 29th September, I raised my chargeback request with Virgin on the 23rd Jan meaning I was within the 120 day chargeback period which would have been the 27th Jan.
Virgin are saying that they won’t perform a chargeback because I didn’t pay the total amount to the supplier, however I have stressed to them that they did not complete the work within the contract agreement of 4 months and that I felt I was being messed around. I even gave them a report by an independent web design company who said the site had been poorly developed and was not fit for purpose. They only ever asked for money and didn’t correct any issues I raised with the website and kept moving the project completion date out. It basically ended up with a total breakdown of communication between the supplier and I where they did not want to go back and correct issues with the website and only wanted more money from myself even though the project completion date had passed.
Seeing as though Virgin will not issue a chargeback so I went to the Financial Ombudsman and made a complaint in March. Since then I have recently had a final decision from the adjudicator saying that he felt the bank was within reason to reject the chargeback on the grounds that I did not pay the total contract value, if this was the case and they had still not delivered then the bank would/should perform a chargeback. However I have explained that the supplier did not complete the website within the contract date and I felt by giving them more money and time to complete I still wouldn’t have had a complete website.
The adjudicator has also explained because I paid through a third party who initiated the deal and payment were made through that section 75 does not cover me which is frustrating to say the least.
The adjudicator has now said I might have a chance by taking Virgin to court on the grounds of the contract being breached.
Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated.

CampManager

We recently had our washing machine repaired; it was coming up with a specific error code, meaning water wasn't getting hot and nothing was getting clean. The engineer came and diagnosed a problem with the thermostat and the mother board thingy inside.

A week and £300 later it was 'repaired', but when trying to do some washing, it now doesn't spin. Water now gets hot, but remains sopping wet. When calling engineer back he thinks either its a duff mother board, or is suggesting the motor is also broken, and needs replacing. If this is the case, then obviously I might as well chuck it away and get a new one as it'll be cheeper!

My question - if the originally diagnosed problem was not the full extent of the issue, am I entitled to have a refund on the parts and labour that I paid for? And if so, is this covered under section 75?

Many Thanks

James

alex23_2

I bought a caravan on ebay, buy it now, £3500 paid through paypal using my Nat West mastercard. Having asked questions about the van i.e Cris reg, log book, chassis number, I thought everything was OK, as soon as I purchased, seller decided he wasn't available that coming weekend for collection even though he stated it had to be collected within 5 days, but he didn't disclose his address. We still went on to insure, arrange storage and buy mirrors etc etc...it was only when purchasing the Cris documents we realised he'd falsely advertised the caravan, as it had more owners than he'd stated. Now this was only Cris registered owners which he wasn't even one of, so this made me really suspicious. I raised a dispute with paypal, only to find they closed it immediately as they don't protect you when buying or selling automobiles, but when I called they advised me to raise a chargeback with my credit card company. This was back in September. I did. Nat West said to leave it with them for 30 days, if there was no caravan they would immediately refund my card, on the 29th day, they emailed to say they couldn't process my claim on the grounds of no goods received as the seller looked like he now wished to deliver? This was untrue and this was a threatening email we had received from the seller who told us to beware that he had our address and details, which was true. To date we still don't have his! So Nat West made us begin a new claim, this time as goods not as described, which we felt was considerable unfair as we'd already told them this from the onset. Then they progressed to discredit the information we'd given them from a senior manager from HPi Cris, who in turn emailed them and put them straight and it was on her evidence that same day that they submitted and refunded our account, but a few days later we received a letter stating the seller could dispute this. We could see the progress on our paypal account. Then we noticed the case was closed so we phoned paypal and was told the case was closed in our favour and that Nat West were refunded in full on 4th November 2009 and the seller was notified by email on the same day. On Saturday 21st November, our daughters 13th birthday, we received a letter from Nat West claiming that the retailer had contested their decision to refund me and asked me if I wished to dispute this to do so within 14 days otherwise my account will be redebited with £3500. I contacted Paypal immediately who informed me this was not the case and backed it up with an email confirming that the case was closed and the seller cannot dispute the refund as the seller has no seller protection as automobiles are not covered, so they have no idea where Nat West are coming from, but from speaking to them today, they appear confident that they are in dispute with a "retailer" and that they are doing us a favour even going to the extent of asking my wife if she wanted to take it to the small claims court instead as they don't have to help us out.

I find their comments downright abusive and would like to ask for any advise? I am in Scotland, just incase this makes any difference law wise.

alex23_2

I bought a caravan on ebay, buy it now, £3500 paid through paypal using my Nat West mastercard. Having asked questions about the van i.e Cris reg, log book, chassis number, I thought everything was OK, as soon as I purchased, seller decided he wasn't available that coming weekend for collection even though he stated it had to be collected within 5 days, but he didn't disclose his address. We still went on to insure, arrange storage and buy mirrors etc etc...it was only when purchasing the Cris documents we realised he'd falsely advertised the caravan, as it had more owners than he'd stated. Now this was only Cris registered owners which he wasn't even one of, so this made me really suspicious. I raised a dispute with paypal, only to find they closed it immediately as they don't protect you when buying or selling automobiles, but when I called they advised me to raise a chargeback with my credit card company. This was back in September. I did. Nat West said to leave it with them for 30 days, if there was no caravan they would immediately refund my card, on the 29th day, they emailed to say they couldn't process my claim on the grounds of no goods received as the seller looked like he now wished to deliver? This was untrue and this was a threatening email we had received from the seller who told us to beware that he had our address and details, which was true. To date we still don't have his! So Nat West made us begin a new claim, this time as goods not as described, which we felt was considerable unfair as we'd already told them this from the onset. Then they progressed to discredit the information we'd given them from a senior manager from HPi Cris, who in turn emailed them and put them straight and it was on her evidence that same day that they submitted and refunded our account, but a few days later we received a letter stating the seller could dispute this. We could see the progress on our paypal account. Then we noticed the case was closed so we phoned paypal and was told the case was closed in our favour and that Nat West were refunded in full on 4th November 2009 and the seller was notified by email on the same day. On Saturday 21st November, our daughters 13th birthday, we received a letter from Nat West claiming that the retailer had contested their decision to refund me and asked me if I wished to dispute this to do so within 14 days otherwise my account will be redebited with £3500. I contacted Paypal immediately who informed me this was not the case and backed it up with an email confirming that the case was closed and the seller cannot dispute the refund as the seller has no seller protection as automobiles are not covered, so they have no idea where Nat West are coming from, but from speaking to them today, they appear confident that they are in dispute with a "retailer" and that they are doing us a favour even going to the extent of asking my wife if she wanted to take it to the small claims court instead as they don't have to help us out.

I find their comments downright abusive and would like to ask for any advise? I am in Scotland, just incase this makes any difference law wise.

Kellyp_2

Hi There,

So 2 years ago we went on holiday; the flight was delayed by 24 hours, 2 days after finally arriving at our destination our holiday was interrupted dramatically by the arrival of a hurricane, which essentially destroyed our hotel and left us without food, running water and electricity for 4 days until we were eventually evacuated. The holiday company (Thomas Cook) didn't offer us a refund, and they didn't offer us an alternative holiday, in fact they didn't even fly us home, First Choice did! The only refund we got was for the trips we had bought upon arrival.

Our holiday insurance company doesn't want to know, Thomas Cook have been less than forthcoming in their responses, despite us contacting them individually and also as a group of passengers who exchanged details before being evacuated.

My question is I paid for the holiday on my CC, so am I covered under section 75 to claim back the cost? I know hurricanes = 'act of god' which is why neither the insurance company nor Thomas Cook say they will not offer any compensation, however I am still out of pocket by £2000 for a holiday which never actually happened, and was in fact a disappointment from the start.

Thoughts on section 75 covering this?

Thanks
Kelly

johnfthetraveller

Kellyp wrote: »

Hi There,

So 2 years ago we went on holiday; the flight was delayed by 24 hours, 2 days after finally arriving at our destination our holiday was interrupted dramatically by the arrival of a hurricane,
<<snip>.
Thoughts on section 75 covering this?

Thanks
Kelly

I'm no expert, but I would have thought that the only way you had a section 75 claim was if the travel company have broken their contract. Ok so the hurricane was an act of god, which you can't blame them for. But you surely should expect compensation from them for the initial 24 hr delay, and, once the hurricane had happened, for dealing with all the consequences - getting you into comparable alternative accomodation for the remainder of the holiday and any extra expenses. If they won't deal with that aspect, then I would argue they've broken their T&C, and you have a Section 75 claim.