No MasterCard protection for faulty goods

Devonite

Hi there,

As a first post please excuse any fopars ☺
Prior to talking about what has been going on with LloydsTSB MasterCard’s CCA Claims department I’ll give you a brief synopsis as to how I’ve ended up trying to deal with them.
On the 6th May ’09 my wife and I bought several mattresses, a bed and accessories from Benson Beds Ltd using our credit card. Delivery was on 16th May. On the 7th August I spoke with Benson Beds customer support (the stores will not deal with complaints) about the mattress we had purchased for our own bed – the sides were collapsing, no longer firm. I was told to send photographs via email. This I did on the 18th August. These pictures were sent to Silentnight, the manufacturer, by Benson Beds for a decision to be made. On the 20th August Benson Beds informed me that the manufacturer had agreed to replace the mattress and it would take 3 – 4 weeks when we would then be contacted about a delivery date.
On the 2nd October (6 weeks) I contacted Benson Beds again; having first spoken with MasterCard about my ‘rights’. Given the delay from my first contacting them I said that I wanted my money back; the goods had not be fit for purpose and that the customer care was very poor. I also voiced concerns over the guarantee having been eaten in to. Benson Beds responded by suggesting that I phone the warehouse to arrange delivery and they could not give me a refund.

I then wrote to MasterCard on the same day, as they instructed, including full details of all contact with Benson Beds Ltd and receipts etc. MasterCard wrote back, 22nd October, asking for details of purchase and requesting receipts, correspondence etc. I replied with some concern given that I had already supplied this information. Early December I telephoned MasterCard to see what was happening and was told that there was a 6 – 8 week time period for them to deal with disputes.
A letter arrived (2nd January ’10 I think) from the Manager, CCA Claims, MasterCard, dated 22nd December ’09. I quote from the letter: “… our attempts to resolve your dispute have been unsuccessful as we have been unable to elicit a response from Benson Beds.” A further quote: “… by offering to replace the mattress, it appears that the merchant may be fulfilling their obligations. I regret that we are therefore not in a position to assist you further.” They went on to say that should we wish to pursue the matter they could only suggest seeking independent legal advice. As a gesture of goodwill they continued to hold the amount of £1,587.51 in abeyance for a further 21 days.
I wrote back on 4th January, having first checked out this very website and its advice, and pointed out that under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, 1974, I felt that LloydsTSB MasterCard were equally responsible and I requested a claim form. I also pointed out that all I was seeking as the cost of the unsatisfactory mattress, £599.95. A response dated 12th January said that they did not have claim forms and that customers should write details of their claim. They confirmed their position remained the same as previously stated. As a further gesture of goodwill they continue to hold the full credit card expenditure for a further 14 days – until the 26th January. They write that after such time it will become due for payment – we did clear the payment by mid May 2009.

Is what is going on here right? We went shopping and seem to have something that is faulty and not suitable anyway. We made it very clear I had spinal injuries when purchasing; I’ve since suffered a hernia and a five month wait for surgery – successful but it would have been nice to have a decent mattress for my convalescence.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

izools

Although the item has become faulty within six months, making it the vendors responsibility to prove that it is fit for purpose if you say it is not, a timely replacement of the faulty goods is acceptable.

Only if goods become faulty within 28 days can the purchaser demand a refund, after which refund or replacement is acceptable, and can be decided by the retailer.

If you can prove that the way in which the replacement was / is being handled, is also unfit for purpose, and believe me, you'll have a fight on your hands doing that, then S.75 of the CCA1974 may still stand if the seller themselves declines a refund based on the unfit for purpose argument.

dylanuk

I'm not sure what to suggest apart from getting in touch with Consumer Direct / Office of Fair Trading..

There's some information on how to complain with template letters and also contact details if you feel unsuccessful in your own complaints: http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/making-complaint/how-to-complain/

Also might be worth a look through here: http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/ to find out more about what your rights are in this situation.

Good luck with it.

bazster

This is the usual bullpoo that you get from credit card companies. Their customer services department is not there to provide customers with service, it is there to get rid of you as cheaply as possible and with the minimum of effort. My guess is that they haven't even tried to contact the retailer.

Bottom line: you complained to the retailer 5 months ago about the faulty item, and you have still not got a replacement. Ergo, the retailer is not "fulfilling their obligations", and the credit card company is absolutely liable under the Consumer Credit Act.

Last time I claimed like this against a credit card company they spun the same bunch of lies...can't contact the merchant...nothing more we can do...blah blah blah. In the end I wrote to them four times, every time reminding them of their obligations under the Act, and eventually threatening them with the small claims court. They paid up in the end.

Keep copies of everything, send everything recorded delivery, and INSIST! If they continue to refuse, go to the Ombudsman. And if the spineless Ombudsman refuses to do anything, go to the small claims court. But I very much doubt it'll get that far, since the credit card company doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You could also write to the retailer and threaten them with court action. But keep it honest: only accept a refund from one of them!

P.S. you did try to get the replacement delivered, right? The post above is correct, the retailer is entitled to provide a replacement rather than a refund, so if you've refused a replacement then you are SOL.

Tim_Deegan

The first mistake you made was buying Silentnight, and the Second was buying from Bensons. If you so a search for them in the MSE forums you will see why.

I don't think you would win the 'unfit for purpose' argument, because they will just say that it was fit for purpose when you bought it, but it developed a fault.

As far as the credit card holding the funds is concerned. As soon as you opened a dispute about the purchase they will have taken the money you paid out of Bensons account, and will hold it until the matter is resolved one way or another. So although Bensons were being very slow sending a replacement, they have now lost your money also. So they may now be unwilling to cooperate with yourself and Mastercard. I know this is poor customer relations, but we are talking about Bensons.

Have you at any point tried contacting Silentnight direct, and explained that you have had no luck with Bensons? Afterall Silentnight must have a huge department that deals with replacements.

It would also be worth contacting Trading Standards, as Onbudsman services often prove to be toothless.

1Louis2

They all seem quite happy to abrogate their responsibilities if it suits them.

Has anyone tried to claim against any of the credit card companies for goods that have become faulty under the MFI extended warranty scheme. If any one has any bright ideas , such information would be gratefully received. I hasten to add that I do not currently have a claim yet but am trying to cover my back.

gnaril

I was writing a big long post to answer a few points in here but I get annoyed with half the crap people spout on here.

OP mate, You do have protection in respect of faulty goods, Chargeback scheme is in place, your circumstances are that the merchant have offered to replace the item in question which they are well within their rights to do.

You seem to have gone straight for the Section 75 route as apposed to the chargeback route, point 1 you are out of time for a chargeback now anyways based on what you have stated, also you are no longer in posession of the item and therefore have no way to obtain an "independant report" to verify the faulty item, which is a requirement under the card scheme rules.

SOOOOO its basically like this, as the merchant are willing to repair/replace the item in question- ONLY a court can decide if you are within your rights to reject the item and request a refund that is why the card issuer have told you seek legal advice etc. I see this at work quite often, you can either take the advice or ignore it either way.

You can still pursue the bank if you wish in respect of the amount, As they have stated thought, the merchant are still trading -offering to rectify the sitation and as such there is no way on this planet they are going to take a Section 75 loss as they quite simply dont have to.

One thing I would say is, you have said in your post the merchant advised you they would replace the item in question.
Have you taken delivery of replacement item? Or due to you trying the credit card route have you stopped talking to the merchant?

Im sure one of the Sale of goods act peeps will come along and give you more info in respect of the - Repair replacement/refund and what you are entitled to do.

As stated above this isnt really my field I can only give you a little bit of info from the inside and bits I have picked up.

All the best

gnaril

1Louis2

MFI - Yes its pretty easy and straightforward in regards to MFI claims still see the odd few come in the door, a lot less now thou.

Again contact your bank via letter quoting section 75. advise them the issues with the items that you have, supply copy of supporting documentation regarding your order/installation etc. They will then review this give you your options.

bazster

gnaril wrote: »

1Louis2

MFI - Yes its pretty easy and straightforward in regards to MFI claims still see the odd few come in the door, a lot less now thou.

Again contact your bank via letter quoting section 75. advise them the issues with the items that you have, supply copy of supporting documentation regarding your order/installation etc. They will then review this give you your options.

In my experience they will most likely reply telling you that it's not their problem and there is nothing they can do, in the hope that you will give up and go away.

My last claim was for a two-year contract for services, paid for up-front with a well-known Visa card, where the supplying company went bust after 10 months (not an extended warranty, but the same general principle). I insisted (as was my right under section 75) that the bank pay the cost of another 14 months' service with another company, which actually came to more than the entire two years had originally cost (it was a damned good original deal which was no longer available anywhere else - in fact, it was too good for the supplier's financial health LOL!).

As I said above, the bank lied and squirmed and just generally tried to make me go away, but I got there in the end.

bazster

gnaril wrote: »

You seem to have gone straight for the Section 75 route as apposed to the chargeback route

Unlike Section 75, chargeback confers no contractual or legal rights on the cardholder, it is purely an arrangement between banks to which the cardholder is not party.

If a cardholder simply wants a refund, at the end of the day he/she will generally not care whether it comes about as a result of chargeback or section 75, but since section 75 is the only thing that gives the cardholder any rights with respect to the credit card company, then of course a section 75 claim is the correct thing for the cardholder to do, even if it then prompts the bank to obtain a refund under chargeback.

Furthermore, there are circumstances, such as I describe above, where a refund is not adequate. Where a contract has been breached, the injured party is entitled to be restored to the same position he/she would have been in had the contract not been breached. If the merchant is not willing or not able to do that, then section 75 means that the liability falls on the card issuer - and it may well cost more than a mere refund, hence chargeback is inadequate.

gnaril

Well Bazster in regards to your post- Quite simple really

You paid for a service only got part of that service.

I would have simple chargedback the amount of service you had not recieved back to the merchants bank- They have to provide docuementation/proof they have provided all the service to you. You say they were in liquidation so therefore generally speaking they aint going to represent anything back and you have your refund so you are not at a loss. Easy as that. I think they from reading peoples posts on here and offering some advice- its clear to see that some banks/people dont try charging back the transactions even if its simplyto try it and see if there is any way to pursue it. Bear in mind you can go for a second chargeback- Precompliance and then following on to Arbitration. There are many ways that pretty much 90% of any transaction that you do can AND will be done via the chargeback route.

You gotta bear in mind any Section 75 claim is a LOSS to the bank therefore they are entitled to pursue this via the chargeback route- that is why sometimes it does take some time as behind the scenes they are fighting it out with the merchants back..


Of course where contract has been breached such as you pay for a training course- 6 tests and exam- you get 2 tests merchant goes bust. You only have part of the service however part of the service is no good without all of it.

In that case you would chargeback the service you have not recieved to the merchants bank and you would get a Section 75 reimbursement for the difference so you get the full amount back.


I find it weird how some banks work from the posts here - I read stuff on here and think Christ thats really straighforward it should be done and the poster should have been helped straightaway. Section 75 is not the ONLY rights a consumer has- They have the right to request a Chargeback under Mastercard or Visa card scheme.

If that arguement was in place then what happens when you buy £99.00 Baseball bate from USA, it is not recieved, you have tried to chase it up with the merchant and they dont reply.

Section 75 doesnt cover purchase <£100. So therefore it is your right to request your bank to chargeback this transaction, and you will get it back, The merchant have to provide confirmation of delivery- signature etc, you havent signed for any thing as you havent got it therefore thats it.

Sorry going off topic now at the end of the day it really depends on what the person working your file is prepared to try to get your funds back, The OP post the bank are correct in their position, merchant have offered to replace and only a court can decide if cm is entitled to reject this, if they do then customer would get the funds back from the bank and/or retailer.