Buy abroad using a credit card and you’re now protected!

MSE_Martin

What’s the deal?

Booyakasha to the Court of Appeal! It’s decided what's called 'section 75' protection does apply when you buy overseas (including from foreign websites) as well as in the UK.

How does this affect me?

This means buy something costing over £100 on a credit (not debit) card and the card company's equally liable with the retailer; in other words if something goes wrong you can simply make a claim directly against the credit card company, without contacting the foreign company.

It's one reason I always spend on a cashback credit card, repaid in full, as I get money back and extra protection.

Find out more

Read the Consumer Rights and Best Cashback Cards articles

building

debit card . any idea how they did this???

MSE_Martin wrote:

What’s the deal?

Booyakasha to the Court of Appeal! It’s decided what's called 'section 75' protection does apply when you buy overseas (including from foreign websites) as well as in the UK.

How does this affect me?

This means buy something costing over £100 on a credit (not debit) card and the card company's equally liable with the retailer; in other words if something goes wrong you can simply make a claim directly against the credit card company, without contacting the foreign company.

It's one reason I always spend on a cashback credit card, repaid in full, as I get money back and extra protection.

Find out more

Read the Consumer Rights and Best Cashback Cards articles

Paul_Varjak

That is jolly good news.

Visa offers similar protection on its debit card as that obtainable by law on a credit card.

Does that mean Visa will honour claims on overseas purchases by persons using its debit card?

MSE_Martin

It's important to understand this is a statutory protection derived from the Consumer Credit Act. It's due to the fact credit card spending is automatically borrowing. The only way it is applicable to debit cards is on a voluntary basis by the card provider/issues/transaction authority. So the answer is "there's no way to make it apply on debit cards."

martin

Alfie_E

There are two important points to be added to this.

The first is that “section 75” can apply to debit card transactions. If your bank account is overdrawn when you make a purchase, or a purchase makes you over drawn, you’re overed by the Consumer Credit Act. See the section What is a credit-token? in Ombudsman News 46 - Using plastic cards as credit-tokens. When you think about this, this is logical. There’s no practical difference between credit obtained with a credit card and that obtained with a debit card.

The second point is that the above is concerned only with your statutory rights – those provided by law. These are in addition to your credit card chargeback rights. These rights are provided by the credit card networks – Visa and MasterCard. The card issuers that issue their cards agree to pass on these rights to us, their customers. Your chargeback rights are far more extensive then those provided by the Consumer Credit Act. For example, there’s no minimum limit on what transactions are covered. And, they’ve always covered international transactions.

The chargeback system is also of relevance to debit cards. Visa also provide chargeback rights on their debit cards. See Visa debit card refunds. Unfortunately, MasterCard don’t provide UK Maestro cards. These are still provided by the company formerly called Switch – it’s only the branding that’s changed. So there’s certainly no chargeback provision for them. Visa’s debit card chargeback rights are not quite as extensive as those covering their credit cards. Visa’s exact definition on when a chargeback may be made is when the merchant commits a “breach of contract.” This obviously occurs where a shop simply fails to provide the goods.

sly_dog_jonah

I have a situation with a broken digital camera which is still under warranty, I have googled the fault and not only it is a very common problem with the camera, it is also one which the manufacturer has refused to fix for other people affected by it.

It was bought from Pixmania.co.uk using an Egg Money (or Egg Blue Mastercard) in August 2005 and was over £100. Pixmania say warranty issues within 12months should be taken up with the manufacturer, and that French law applies to the original transaction.

It appears to me then that I have two possible routes of redress. Firstly, is to try to get Casio (let's name and shame while we're at it) to fix the Exilim EX-Z57 camera under warranty (the fault is a well documented 'Lens Error' which appears when turning it on in capture mode). If they fix it under warranty I shouldn't have to pay anything, except perhaps postage to send it them.

Should they choose not to honour the warranty and repair/replace for free then I believe I am unable to have any redress with Pixmania as they are French. I would then default to claiming a refund from Egg directly under Section 75 of the CCA, quoting the foreign ruling Martin mentioned above. Couple of Q's though:

- Would I have to get the unrepaired product back from Casio in order to do this? At whose cost? If they say its not covered can they charge for even looking at it and coming to this conclusion?
- If I have to go the egg route, can I claim a full refund as it such a common problem and could therefore be construed a design fault?

The next problem is that the camera is in Fiji, for only the next few days before heading to Australia for 3 weeks and then onto SE Asia for 2 months. So the possibility for my girlfriend getting it repaired under global warranty is slim as:

1) she's not going to be anywhere long enough for the repair to be carried out,
2) the warranty and receipt are in the UK (I can get hold of these though)

I think we will have to wait until she gets back in late June, or May if I bring it home after I meet up with her for 3weeks. No point shipping it to me now as there's not time to get it fixed before I fly out to Asia.

I'm going to contact Casio now, to see what the next step is but I'd appreciate any ideas or comments on the above as I'm not keeping my fingers crossed on them honouring the guarantee.

Would it be a big risk to assume we will get a refund, and for my girlfriend to go out and buy a new camera for the rest of her trip?

Thanks in advance for anyone who has anything to offer.

sly_dog_jonah

Update on the above, Casio seem to think they will be able to honour the warranty on the camera. Have had great fun conversing with their Oz customer support, emailing proof of purchase & scans of warranty cards (which they agreed to fortunately) and figuring out where my better half can take it in person to get the repair done ASAP.

The acid test will be when they actually get a look at the camera tomorrow. It could still go belly up and I might end up testing this ruling but that remains to be seen.

nkf

Does Section 75 also cover the purchase and installation of a hands free kit?

I paid for the purchase and installation of a hands free kit from SPComms over the internet and paid with my credit card. The electronic functions on my car were in full working order up until the installation. I informed the engineer immediately durring and after the installation that there were problems with my car.
I was reassured by the engineer that the company had liability insurance and that he would log the problems...and as you can imagine...the next working day I chased this up with SPComms and they have been somewhat obstructive since. Despite my car manufacturer's assessment that it was the electronic problems were most likely caused by a short from a connection linked to the installation of the hands free kit, the engineers insurer states that their own assessment does not show that the fault was definitely due to the installation. WHat makes me now liable for the cost of the repairs? :eek:

Common sense would have it that the fact that my car was fine up until immediately after the installation should be good enough and that it is up to SPComms to pay for the repair, not the the engineer's insurer. And in any case the onus is not on the customer to prove the damage, it is up to the trader to prove that it was NOT them! Seeing as the trader is being obstructive, I am considering claiming through section 75. What do you think?

erratic_2

Credit card cover on overseas purchases

OFT sets out tips for consumers following judgment

60/06 23 March 2006

UK consumers have had confirmed that an important protection is available to them when using a credit card following yesterday’s ruling by the Court of Appeal that section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 applies to overseas as well as domestic transactions.

Lord Justice Waller, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Moore-Bick overturned a previous ruling by the High Court in November 2004 that section 75 did not apply to overseas purchases. Yesterday’s judgment followed the OFT’s appeal against the High Court decision. It confirms the OFT’s view that credit card issuers are individually as well as jointly liable with suppliers if the consumer has a valid claim for misrepresentation or breach of contract by the supplier where the price of the purchase is above £100 but no more than £30,000.

Cardholders are, therefore, able to make a claim against the credit card issuer as well as or instead of the supplier.

UK consumers spent almost £123 billion on domestic credit card transactions in 2004, and a further £12.5 billion on overseas transactions.

Section 75 covers foreign transactions including where:

a consumer uses a UK credit card to buy goods while abroad
a consumer orders goods from a foreign supplier while abroad for delivery into the UK
a consumer in the UK buys goods which are delivered to a UK address from overseas by telephone, mail order or over the internet
there is face-to-face pre-contract dealings with a foreign supplier temporarily in the UK, or with a UK agent of a foreign supplier, but the contract is not completed in the UK.
John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:

‘The application of section 75 to overseas credit card purchases has long been uncertain, and we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has been able to examine Parliament’s intention behind the legislation, and resolve the issue in favour of consumers and in a way which takes account of developments in the market.’

Tips for consumers on credit card purchases

thanks to the consumer protection of section 75, money that seemed lost on a credit card purchase can be claimed back
if you pay by credit card you can claim your money back from the card company if the seller fails to honour the contract, or the item is faulty or if the seller wrongly describes it or if the supplier goes out of business
you do not have to attempt to claim your money back from the seller first – the credit card company is individually liable
if you are buying an item costing over £100 and you are asked for a deposit, consider paying the deposit by credit card
you are not covered by section 75 if you use a debit or charge card.
NOTES

1. The OFT sought to resolve the issue of the application of section 75 to overseas as well as domestic transactions by way of a Court declaration (see press release 82/03). The OFT’s position that the concept of ‘equal liability’ of card issuers and suppliers does apply was disputed by Lloyds TSB Bank plc, Tesco Personal Finance Ltd (part of The Royal Bank of Scotland group) and American Express Services Europe Limited. The High Court ruled in November 2004 that section 75 applied to domestic credit card transactions only (see press release 186/04). That protection was yesterday extended by the Court of Appeal to overseas transactions.

2. Figures given by APACS (the UK payments association) for 2004.

3. Section 75(1) states that card issuers are jointly and severally liable for any misrepresentation or breach of contract in relation to a transaction with a cash price of £100 to £30,000 which is financed by an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

lindsey29_2

Could someone please clarify for me what the status of this is. My sister part paid for goods she didn't receive with a credit card. Can she only claim back the part paid for by credit card or the whole amount. Her credit card company say only the amount paid by cc?????

grumbler

See the link in the firs post: Consumer Rights > Pay the right way!

The Core Rule is if you pay for goods worth over £100 even partially on a credit card then the credit card company is equally liable with the retailer. That means if you have a problem such as non-delivery of goods, or with any of your above statutory rights, then you can go straight to the credit card company rather than the retailer. This is often extremely useful, as the retailer may've gone bust, or be being obstructive.

See also my quote from which?extra in the Faulty goods on credit cards question? thread.

I always believed, that you should pay at least £100 by a credit card to be covered. Probably, I was wrong.