Additional cardholder is not protected under Section 75 !

notatroll

Is it true that additional cardholder (Visa/MC credit) is not protected under Section 75 of Consumer Credit Act 1974? (no compensation if seller goes to administration, etc.) My bank says so. Can someone please confirm or disprove – i cannot google anything useful out. Thanks in advance.

YorkshireBoy

It's a grey area (and there is case law backing up your card provider's stance), the main reason being the secondary cardholder is not a 'debtor' in the debtor/creditor/supplier arrangement. If you're going to make a claim then it needs to be a joint claim, seems to be the advice given by the results from my quick google search...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&cr=countryUK%7CcountryGB&q=section+75+additional+cardholder&start=10&sa=N

jamalfatty

Quite a few companies though cant differentiate which card has been used - cards are identical bar the printed name which is not used for the purpose of the transaction going through. So if needed you could always claim 'on behalf' of the AU

notatroll

Thanks for your replies.


So if an item/order was made with additional cardholder’s name/address and merchant is no longer trading/willing to deliver/accept faulty goods back, etc. - there is no chance really to claim the costs from the credit card company?

I understand it is CCA’s ‘greyness’ issue and not the bank’s/payment services provider’s. MBNA’s case ruling – goods ‘not for primary cardholder’s use’ are not covered – how that can be proved if at all? Sure sounds silly to me. Are there any further cases?


What if the cards are identical?

epsilondraconis

I didn't realise this grey area existed - cheers for posting OP. What would I do without MSE?

(Probably get some work done...)

Paul_Herring

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=651