refused a refund under section 75 - Santander

gdp1701

dazza.mk wrote: »

GDP1701,

Note if you want to go the Small Claims route best to send a "Letter before Action" to Santander, just so that the court can see you've given them every opportunity to pay, and just ensure there are no Section 75 issues (ie £1300 goods rather than spent £1,300 on 1300 individual £1 items).

Yep, on to that now. And its big intial purchase plus some consequential through having to fix matters myself.

thenudeone

dunstonh wrote: »

Obviously, ASDA are still trading so that eliminates a number of reasons you can claim under section 75.

There is only one reason for s75 claims which is that the supplier has failed to honour its obligations under contract or statute law.

It is irrelevant whether they are still trading. You can still take legal action against the card issuer directly and without taking action action against the supplier first, although doing so may be a quicker and easier way to resolve the issue.
Of course the bank will try to fob you off. No doubt they have people who are bonused on reducing the amounts they have to pay to customers in these circumstances. They may even say something like: "the only circumstances in which we will refund you is when you have satisfied a court of your case". in other words - sue us if you dare!

Don't be put off. Insist on your rights and escalate the issue.

If you have legal cover with your house insurance, contact them to help you though it. A phone call or letter from a legal firm often loosens the finger on the "refund" button.

owenp

dazza.mk wrote: »

GDP1701,

Note if you want to go the Small Claims route best to send a "Letter before Action" to Santander, just so that the court can see you've given them every opportunity to pay, and just ensure there are no Section 75 issues (ie £1300 goods rather than spent £1,300 on 1300 individual £1 items).

So, if I bought say 5 items at £50 each mail order from the same supplier at the same time and on the same invoice but the supplier failed to send the goods, would I have a claim under Section 75?

dazza.mk

owenp wrote: »

So, if I bought say 5 items at £50 each mail order from the same supplier at the same time and on the same invoice but the supplier failed to send the goods, would I have a claim under Section 75?

Theoretically you won't see Martin's article:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

There are a number of 'gaps' such as with the additional cardholder, by that I mean the additional cardholder uses the additional card for something that is solely for their benefit (ie the tailored outfit),theoretically this falls outside the legal relationship that Section 75 requires, so you wouldn't be covered (however if the main cardholder had used their card and made the purchase you would).

However it is always worth trying, whether there is a legal loophole or not, as the card issuer may be more helpful than Santander in the above example.

owenp

Dazza,
Thank you very much for that reply.
Just what I needed.
Owen

ILW

What have you not recieved that is in your contract. That will be the at the heart of the matter.

kowalski181

they are disgraceful arent they. I had transaction with hot fires at start of march, £1090. company has since gone into administration, asda cards who i purchased the fires with then locked my account servicing online when I advised regards the dispute (before which I spoke to an Indian call centre rep who didnt know what I was talking about and had to go the merchant first). They advised they 'may' send something in the post, and I received an online message in my account (unable to respond as locked due to the disputed t/a) advising that it should be resolved in 28 days. I spoke to them today over 5 weeks later and they advised they hadnt received a resopnse from the letter, I advised I hadnt received a letter and why wasnt I told that I would be receiving a letter on any of the 3 times I had contacted them since the dispute. They apologised profusely and said they would re-send, opssibly by email though couldnt guarantee, to speed up delayed process. I have had enough of them.
Just as a point, hope someone can help, my wife is AU on account and I purchased the goods under my card, but in her name for ease of communication and deliveries etc as she is housewfie. She is the name on the administators creditor list that we have received (filled in relevant forms with administrator when became aware of situation), this shouldnt change the section 75 or chargeback should it??? I've spoken with a lady on the forum who received her refund from satander cards yesterday under the zero card, but she was initially refused a refund and had to speak to managers and allsorts... why do they make it so hard

gnaril

kowalski181 in relation to your particular case.

The contract is in the name of the AU on your account. This will not stop a chargeback being actioned for you should the criteria being met.

As for Section 75 - the bank only has a contract with the principal cardholder ie you. If the contract is in the name of a 3rd party then the bank has no liability under Section 75 as you are not a party to the breach.

I will say however as FOS are a law unto themselves and make up their own rules. If your bank do decline on the basis the contract is not in your name. If you complain and ultimatly escalate this to FOS. They will rule in your favour, Not under Section 75 but more so due to their !!!!ed up rules in ignoring the law.

So its win win for you buddy

All the best.

JUst went over your Post tbh your bank are going to chargeback the payment and if they dont they are staffed with fools. Chargeback will win and you should be refunded no problems.

chattychappy

kowalski181 wrote: »

Just as a point, hope someone can help, my wife is AU on account and I purchased the goods under my card, but in her name for ease of communication and deliveries etc as she is housewfie. She is the name on the administators creditor list ...

The administrators creditor list is not the be-all and end-all. It can be wrong.

What precisely do you mean by "I purchased the goods under my card, but in her name" ??

The last ruling I heard was that indeed that transactions carried out by additional users are not covered by s75 because the main cardholder doesn't have privity of contract - ie is not a party to the contract entered into by the merchant. The merchant enters into a contract with the additional cardholder and the additional cardholder isn't in contract with the credit card.

This decision was heavily criticised and may one day be overturned. There is a legal argument that an additional cardholder is acting as agent for the main cardholder when entering into the contract. But AFAIK that is not legal position at the moment.

As gnaril says, that doesn't mean it's the end of the matter if you go to the FOS.

kowalski181

I purchased the goods with my card but used my wifes name for ease of delivery as she is a homemaker as I always do