Section 75 credit card claim thrown out - HELP!!

stfc

Section 75 is a loss to the bank, as not everything can be charged back.

Even if it is charged back the merchant has the right to ask their bank to re-present the transaction.

Chargeback rules don't cover issues of quality, which is what this is. Only slight chance is not as described, but what was the work 'described' as or 'sold' as before authorising the payment. Very difficult to make that chargeback stick.

never-in-doubt

stfc wrote: »

Section 75 is a loss to the bank, as not everything can be charged back.

Even if it is charged back the merchant has the right to ask their bank to re-present the transaction.

Chargeback rules don't cover issues of quality, which is what this is. Only slight chance is not as described, but what was the work 'described' as or 'sold' as before authorising the payment. Very difficult to make that chargeback stick.

Hardly think anyone would pay for a bodge job - think that is the underlying issue here, i.e. the job is that bad then obviously it is not as described/agreed. :rolleyes:

stfc

Agreed but you can't expect a bank to pay up without evidence, which is where the photos and expert report come in.

Any chargeback is always likely to be re-presented given the stance made by the merchant, so she needs to convince MBNA to pay up, which will need evidence.

On the face of it, it sounds like a strong case, so all the best.

ManicMum

Thanks guys. really helpful. Only problem is gettiing an expert report as can't find any companies in this part of UK that do this sort of thing other than useless ones we went to. Maybe I could get something in writing from another company to say what they would have done, even though they won't have seen it. Cheers anyway