Credit Card dispute - please help

mmatt

Hello all,

Newbie here Please bare with me on this. I need your advice please

I've got a problem with my credit card bank. In January I bought a set of 4 alloy wheels (used) for my car. I paid £200 (this is including £50 delivery) directly to the seller using credit card from Capital One. Before I made the payment to the seller I asked if there is any major damage to the wheels. The seller responded verbally that there are some curb marks and scratches but nothing major. When the wheels arrived they've been in very poor condition – the paint was flaking off and there were scratches all over the wheels.

I contacted the seller and he said that I can return the wheels back to them and they will refund me £200 but I'll have to cover the cost of returning the wheels which was about £40. According to distant selling regulation act every item which doesn't satisfy the condition stated can be returned and the seller covers the cost of the return.

The seller didn't agree when I told me that he should cover the cost of the return so I contacted my credit card bank. I had to explain it several times before someone understood that I'm entitled to £200 + £40 because initially the bank returned only £200. When I finally received the full amount of £240 in the letter I was informed that the £40 is taken of the seller's account and if the seller does not agree with something I might be asked to return the money.

After I received £240 I closed the credit card account because I wasn't happy with the service. It took more than 2 months!.

Today I received the letter from Capital One saying that I might have to return £200 because the “seller informed me that the wheels are not in pristine condition”. The seller concluded that “this is a quality issue which no right of Charge back exist”. I believe that the distant selling act clearly states if the item is not in satisfactory condition I can return it at seller cost so I’m a bit confused by the comment in the quote above.

I appreciate if you could help me here how to do it so I don't have to spend another couple of months explaining everything.

Sorry for such a long story but I wanted to draw the whole picture.

Thanks,
Matt

ILW

Were the wheels described as pristine before you bought them?

KingElvis

Didn't your car come with wheels?

You would've noticed when you tried to drive it...sparks and stuff

meer53

The seller is correct, there is no chargeback right under Visa for quality issues. Your credit card will have been credited pending the outcome of your dispute, it's never 100% resolved until the seller has had the chance to respond to your credit card issuer via his bank. What this means is that the seller has represented the chargeback (under Visa regulations he has up to 60 days to do this so no surprise that it took 2 months really) and you may be redebited if your credit card issuer cannot assist further. As the seller has already offered you a refund of the cost of the item, i'd accept that if i were you and pay the cost of the return yourself, it will be sorted much quicker this way.

chanz4

if the seller was not a business, their is zero

mmatt

ILW wrote: »

Were the wheels described as pristine before you bought them?

Nope, they were used. I asked the seller on the phone what kind of damage was on the wheels. I was told that there are some scratches and curb marks but there is no paint damage.
The seller responded in his letter that he actually said that there was a paint damage.
A quck thought - I could request the seller to prove that there was paint damage on the wheels by sending the pictures of the wheels. If they don't have any pictures it will be more difficult to justify their comments.

Thanks,
Matt

mmatt

meer53 wrote: »

The seller is correct, there is no chargeback right under Visa for quality issues. Your credit card will have been credited pending the outcome of your dispute, it's never 100% resolved until the seller has had the chance to respond to your credit card issuer via his bank. What this means is that the seller has represented the chargeback (under Visa regulations he has up to 60 days to do this so no surprise that it took 2 months really) and you may be redebited if your credit card issuer cannot assist further. As the seller has already offered you a refund of the cost of the item, i'd accept that if i were you and pay the cost of the return yourself, it will be sorted much quicker this way.

I still think that the distant selling regulation act applies here. Quote: "If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, you (the seller) will have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances."

Besides I still don't understand why my credit card bank wants to take 200 off me whe the item is back with the seller. Under Section 75, the supplier of the goods and your credit card issuer share liability jointly and severally which means that the bank should deal in that case with the seller and not involve me any more especially when I've received a full refund from the bank already.

Do you agree with me?

mmatt

chanz4 wrote: »

if the seller was not a business, their is zero

The seller is the business

meer53

The refund on your account is pending the result of the dispute, the bank can re debit you at any time. It doesn't sound to me as though any section 75 claim has been started yet, to do this, you have to be able to establish and prove breach of contract, the credit card issuer will deal with this for you as soon as you have provided evidence of the breach and you have advised them what action you are taking, whether you are going to pursue this under section 75 or not, they won't do this automatically, they need documentation from you so that they can contact the seller. You have to be involved, you can't just sit back and expect them to do it. You need to contact them to ask them what they need.

YorkshireBoy

meer53 wrote: »

It doesn't sound to me as though any section 75 claim has been started yet, to do this, you have to be able to establish and prove breach of contract...

Or 'misrepresentation', which sounds like it's the more relevant of the two?

But would section 75 apply? I mean, 4 wheels and p&p for £200...that's a little under £50 per item isn't it?

mmatt

Thank you for your responses.

There is one more thing I've noticed in the letter from the seller which was sent to my credit card bank. The seller stated that they offered me 150 pounds for the wheels because 50 was the cost of posting the wheels to me. On my receipt on the other hand there is no information about the delivery charge. There is only 200 for the wheels and that's it. I believe they can't charge me for something which I wasn't informed about, right?

In addition, when I received the wheels they were wet and I informed the seller about that stating that possibly this liquid (which looked like water) casued the damage. I've got the images of the wheels when they've been delivered. I asked the seller to show me the images before they've been sent out to compare.

Thanks,
Matt