Section 75 refunds - article discussion

Nick73_2

Optimist wrote: »

This is a bit of a grey area but it is considered that it is the total contract price you pay. Therefore a bathroom would be covered a tap under £100 would not

Thanks for your response. I assume you mean that a tap under £100 would not be covered if it was bought separately/on its own (not part of the entire bathroom purchase)?. If it's bought as part of the entire package, it forms part of the same contract/purchase so has the protection of section 75?

In the same way, then, it wouldn't be necessary to break the entire purchase into three separate transactions either: Bathroom, en-suite and downstairs toilet as it would all form part of the same contract/purchase?

theashies

I purchased a hot tub using my credit card. The damn thing has been sent back to the manufacturer twice due to faulty parts within the first 6 months of ownership. the last time when it was returned it had developed two rips. For 6 months I have been in dispute with the company who say they will replace the outer material but that I have to pay to have it returned to them. I believe I should not have to pay as I feel they are responsible for the damaged. What is my best course of action a claim through the small claims court or a claim with my credit card? thanks:(

Jago7t

Optimist wrote: »

The card company would have to bear the cost. They have equal liability with the seller

In the case of breach of contract/failure to deliver. Is there any truth that the card company will attempt to recover from the original supplier as they are singly at fault regardless of joint liability?

Thanks again

Optimist

Jago7t wrote: »

In the case of breach of contract/failure to deliver. Is there any truth that the card company will attempt to recover from the original supplier as they are singly at fault regardless of joint liability?

Thanks again

That would be a matter for the card company but I am pretty sure they would as a matter of business practice.

If the company has gone into liquidation as per your original question the card company would have to bear the loss.

Jago7t

Optimist wrote: »

That would be a matter for the card company but I am pretty sure they would as a matter of business practice.

If the company has gone into liquidation as per your original question the card company would have to bear the loss.

Thanks for this. The supplier was formerly a limited company and got inundated with CCJs and claims from customers under CCA owing to poor service. It started trading under a different name and was insistent on payment by bank transfer (which has no recourse). Just trying to adduce whether that insistence was because if people paid by card, the company would then claim it back off of them under CCA as it may have done before.

As you say, I would think as a matter of business practice they would, but now that the trading company is insolvent the card company will have to foot the bill!

oldtimernowatleisure

If I purchase flights with say Barclaycard and then transfer the balance to another card offering interest free balance transfers do I lose my original section 75 rights?

derrick

oldtimernowatleisure wrote: »

If I purchase flights with say Barclaycard and then transfer the balance to another card offering interest free balance transfers do I lose my original section 75 rights?

No.


...........

vick81

I have paid for a service from a Chartered Surveyors company to appeal my business rating for the next few years. However, the company has now gone into voluntary liquidation. I am going to write to the credit card company and chargeback for the fee, however, i am in a sticky situation as our appeal is coming up - the company in question had all the details on our business/appeal information and the only way we are going to be able to put in a sensible appeal is if we hire a new company to take on the appeal, which will undoubtedly cost more money - will we be able to add this to the chargeback when we write the letter as extra costs?

Thanks,

Jago7t

A card company has refused to pay out the balance when the deposit for the services were paid through Google Checkout.

Rather than this being a 3rd party supplier like Paypal, surely it's just a means of the supplier taking online payment like Sage Pay or a bank?

In any case, the card company have agreed to refund the deposit! Is there any precedent or guidance on 3rd parties like Google Checkout within the meaning of "associates" in the Act that can be used as guidance in a response to the card company?

Reaygal

I bought a washing machine for a flat in France using a Barclaycard. It worked okay for a while and has now developed a fault. Under the one year guarantee the retailer will provide a technician to look at it but there is a charge of 140 Euros because the flat is over 30 kms from the store. As this is half the price of a new machine it hardly seems good value for a fix. Would Section 75 be applicable in this case?