Credit card rights

micktheporter

Hi is there anyone out there who knows whether an additional holder of a credit card has the same consumer rights as the main holder? In particular if one pays for a service to be provided and the seller goes bust can the additional cardholder still claim the cost of monies spent from the credit card company? In my case the card details are exactly the same as the main holder i.e. number etc.
I would welcome any advice.

gnaril

easy answer yes.

regardless who used what card to pay for it you have same rights as themain cardholder. its the same account same card only difference your name is printed on your card.

Providing your main card holder has given authorisation to deal with the account. not sure when you opened it then you can contact them and get the ball rolling on your dispute.

all the best

micktheporter

Thanks gnaril thought that was the case but needed somebody to confirm that I was right. Would have replied sooner but have just joined site and, to be honest, don't know how to use "chat" forums properly. But now "watch this space.

:T

derrick

gnaril wrote: »

easy answer yes.

regardless who used what card to pay for it you have same rights as themain cardholder. its the same account same card only difference your name is printed on your card.

Providing your main card holder has given authorisation to deal with the account. not sure when you opened it then you can contact them and get the ball rolling on your dispute.

all the best

Not true I am afraid: - http://www.wheresmyrefund.co.uk/refunds-when-you-pay-credit-card.html
"Purchases must be made by the ‘principal cardholder’, so if you lend your card to a family member, or a secondary cardholder makes a purchase, these won’t be covered."

http://www.checkmyfile.com/articles/219/personal-finance/why-having-a-second-cardholder-on-your-credit-card-account-is-not-a-good-idea.htm

From The Telegraph ; - "The Financial Ombudsman's office has confirmed that, technically, only the primary cardholder, the person who has signed the credit agreement with the credit provider – ie, Barclaycard – is covered by the CCA."

McKneff

Derrick is correct I'm afraid.
There was a thread about it last week on here.
Sorry!!!

gnaril

Must make it clear i am referring to a possible CHARGEBACK. not section 75 as you have posted.

sorry but i work within disputes and have NEVER had to decline investigating any issue being that it was the second card holder. We deal with chargebacks all the time for second card holders sooooo, this may be referring to section 75 liability however I can assure you it will not affect any possible chargeback rights.

and from what you posted. merchany in liquidation and i would assume recently contact the bank and they will look into it.

you can use the merch liquidation date for chargeback or even extend it to when the service was meant to be delivered. I belive your link is reference to s75

derrick

gnaril wrote: »

Must make it clear i am referring to a possible CHARGEBACK. not section 75 as you have posted.

sorry but i work within disputes and have NEVER had to decline investigating any issue being that it was the second card holder. We deal with chargebacks all the time for second card holders sooooo, this may be referring to section 75 liability however I can assure you it will not affect any possible chargeback rights.

and from what you posted. merchany in liquidation and i would assume recently contact the bank and they will look into it.

you can use the merch liquidation date for chargeback or even extend it to when the service was meant to be delivered. I belive your link is reference to s75

Yes it is, as I was under the assumption the OP meant section 75, (chargeback, whilst is included with CCs, is usually referred to when enquiring about debit cards), as you are under the assumption the OP meant debit cards?

Maybe the OP should clarify which one they are talking about and do they mean chargeback or Section 75!

micktheporter

Help me out folks I'm new to this game. I am talking about an actual credit card account in which my missus is the principal cardholder. I need to know whether I can justifyably expect to get my money back for services not rendered from my credit card supplier and do I go via section 75 or some other means. Sorry to be a pain but, as you've probably guessed, hav'nt got much experience in this line. Thanks all.

micktheporter

Have just had another thought on the matter. Can anyone tell me how the credit card supplier can tell whether the sale was made using the principal or additional card if the only difference between the two is the name on the front (all other numbers etc correspond)?

derrick

micktheporter wrote: »

Help me out folks I'm new to this game. I am talking about an actual credit card account in which my missus is the principal cardholder. I need to know whether I can justifyably expect to get my money back for services not rendered from my credit card supplier and do I go via section 75 or some other means. Sorry to be a pain but, as you've probably guessed, hav'nt got much experience in this line. Thanks all.

Therefore my assumption in reply #4 is correct, and you are not covered,(did you go to the sites via the links as the answers are there?). under Section 75, unless as per the Telegraph link above :- "it can be demonstrated that the purchase was for the benefit of the main cardholder"

You may have some comeback under chargeback, but you need to supply more information as to what the services where.

derrick

micktheporter wrote: »

Have just had another thought on the matter. Can anyone tell me how the credit card supplier can tell whether the sale was made using the principal or additional card if the only difference between the two is the name on the front (all other numbers etc correspond)?

Having never used this type of transaction, I can only assume that as the name is different, then that would be documented somewhere in/on the paper work. Are you sure the numbers are identical? Otherwise as you say it would be difficult to prove!