Section 75 - credit card reversing a refund

SynicalOptimist

meer53 wrote: »

Doesnt sound to me as though the CC issuer has actioned a Section 75 claim and they're just making you an offer to resolve it. You need to find out whether they have or not. It's probably more cost effective for them to pay you than continue with Section 75 as they made an error originally by actioning a chargeback. I'd do what Chanz4 suggests.

If this is the case, then there will defnitely be questions, as it has bee over a month since the section 75 claim was made and they acknowledged it as being so, in writing. But is this type of offer a normal response in a section 75 claim?

fannyanna

I think you can only claim under section 75 for a breach of contract or misrepresentation and not for a breach of the sales of goods act.

SynicalOptimist

Faulty and falsly advertised/misrepresented goods which are advertised as being, in this case, fully serviced and in good condition and fit for purpose, etc, which this vehicle was definitely not, as I understand are covered under section 75. I have had a number of similar cases, but not cars and each successfully claimed under section 75. But then again, I might have been lucky?

The way I see it is, The vehicle was missold, not fit for purpose, as detailed in an independent inspaction caried out for the initial cliam.

The initial claim was initailly trewated as a chargeback which was handled incompetently - by not supplying all the correct paperwork, i.e. independent vehicle inspection caried out at the request of the credit card company and incorrectly as it should have been a section 75 claim.

I then insisted they treat this a section 75 claim, which they agreed to in writing.

Approximately 6 weeks on they make this odd offer, which in my opinion should be a straight forward case of a full refund and no messing around, the car was missold, unroadworhty and generally not fit for pourpose.

Please correct me if I am wrong or just seeing this too two dimensionally.

meer53

I think you need more information from your card issuer about their offer.

If they have actioned a Section 75 claim and the seller has queried this with them, as they made an error originally they may just be making a goodwill offer to end the case. I'm just looking at it from my own point of view, they've already spent time on the failed chargeback, they may have tried Section 75 and been knocked back on that too, they probably realise that to keep trying won't be very cost effective for them and will probably cost them more than they've offered you.

Why don't you contact them and request a full refund and advise them that they can have the car ? It's worth a try
I've seen much higher write offs.

chanz4

think selling the car even as scrap will get you more that you would of paid

SynicalOptimist

meer53 wrote: »

I think you need more information from your card issuer about their offer.

If they have actioned a Section 75 claim and the seller has queried this with them, as they made an error originally they may just be making a goodwill offer to end the case. I'm just looking at it from my own point of view, they've already spent time on the failed chargeback, they may have tried Section 75 and been knocked back on that too, they probably realise that to keep trying won't be very cost effective for them and will probably cost them more than they've offered you.

Why don't you contact them and request a full refund and advise them that they can have the car ? It's worth a try
I've seen much higher write offs.

My reasoning exactly...Proven faulty good beyond a shaddow of a doubt, full refund under section 75 only way to go. That is what section 75 protection is for, isn't it?

InsideInsurance

Why it is there is a whole thread in its own right and in fact was discussed at length not that long ago.

Ultimately, irrespective of if you are dealing with the merchant or the card issuer, before it goes to court it is a matter of negotiation. It is not surprising they have offered a reduce settlement with you retaining the vehicle as what is a bank going to do with a car? I doubt the volumes they get are sufficient to have a meaningful supplier to deal with them well on their behalf. Certainly an ex client just used to do a staff auction once every few months of all the salvage they had.

If you arent happy with it then negotiate

SynicalOptimist

Update:

Offer made is for £1700 including expenses. The offer is for a single part which must be fitted before any further diagnostics can be performed on the vehicle and the offer does not inlude vat and labour for the part, costing a furhter £300.

I spoke to the case handler was told to get more information to substantiate any negotiation for an increase in the offer. Then I was really puzzled, I asked him to recall the money form the merchant bank, which, as I understand, is the procedure, when you have proven a faulty product and breach of contract, he then told me that HSBC have not facility to do this as it is Mastercard and the bank is having to bear the cost themselves. I told him to bear it and pay in full as the vehicle was clearly faulty and that they were equally liable. Although he was open to negotiation, we still have to further prove the cost of repairs, even though the full costs of repairs can not be fully diagnosed until the aforementioned mentioned single faulty part is replaced.

We now have to prove this and get furhter estimates. Surely this is not right??? the product is faulty and challenged with six months of purchase, 24 hrs, to be exact and has an independent inspection to prove this that it is faulty, not fit for purpose and cleary there is a breach of contract as it was sold as a road worthy, fully serviced family car.

It looks like they are still not applying section 75 and can not be bothered to persue the retailer. The Banks problem? I think.

lisyloo

I for one thik you are right and that you are under no obligation to accept their offer or get the car repaired.
Refuse their offer state what you want.
If you don't get it soon then write a formal complaint stating that if they don't carry out their statutory obligations then you will raise the issue withe FOS (which is a free and independent service to you).

BTW - do you have any free legal advice on your home insurance where you can talk to a qualified solicitor for free.
These websites are great but they have their limitations.

SynicalOptimist

I am doing this for a freind who does not have free legal advice. I am the only support, which is not much, but better than nothing.

They now potentially have £1700 instead of nothing. But I think this credit card company is is really chancing their arm, and why not, it is a bank.

But I want the full refund and expanses for them. The car is hopefully going to be taken to have a furhter inspection of the under body as it was only visually checked on the original report. If this is as serious as it looks then this is furhter evcidence of not fit for purpose as it will be an MOT failure, not as advedrtised, then with this and furhter potential costs, I will tell them toi give a substanciated full refund plus expenses or they can deal with the ombudsman. Their non compliance or ignorance of section 75 is our issue.