Beware of .co.uk websites!

Azari

antrobus wrote: »

A credit card company can't be held liable unless s75 does apply. It's the suppliers terms which are (allegedly) unfair, not those of the credit card company.

Quite. That's what I said. There's no need for s75.

OP would be much better advised to pursue the goods-not-received chargeback route against their credit card provider rather than muddying the waters with references to FOS rulings that don't apply.

Again, that is what I was saying.

(I agree that in an earlier post I was muddling up two different sets of rules which is why the quoted post may not be clear.)

wary

savemoney wrote: »

Takes one to know one

Does it really?!?

That must be the stupidest saying ever contrived ...

Azari

savemoney wrote: »

I never said anyone was stupid your the on who is calling me stupid. I mealy suggested I thought most people knew co.uk doesn't have to be a UK address, I said most not everyone

Sorry if you got lumped in with the people earlier in the thread who were belittling the OP and it was not your intent to 'have a go' at him.

savemoney

No it was not my intention to belittle anyone, maybe could have been worded differently I am extremely tired sleep apnoea. Apologise accepted. I have removed my post

bazster

Azari wrote: »

There is no need for s75 CCA 1974 if the terms are unfair.

Or indeed, as far as most CC companies are concerned, if the goods were not received.

Or indeed if the £45 payment were never authorised, which would be plain fraud and the CC company would most certainly be liable.