S75 refund refused

Heath_and_Heather

Hi all this is my first post on this website,

I recent purchased a bike online and when delivered I realised the frame size did not fit me. I advised the retailer within 2 days of receiving the bike that I would unfortunately have to return it. I returned the bike at my own cost to the retailer, but the retailer refused to accept the bike saying the tyres were dirty.

I checked the Distance Selling Regulations and am convinced I am entitled to a full refund so I pursued my credit card company for a section 75 refund. They have agreed that I am entitled to a full refund however have advised me to pursue under a small claims court.

They believe that section 75 only concerns itself with the sale of goods act, (ie if the product was faulty, parts missing etc) but they state there is no connection between section 75 and the Distance Selling regulations.

Does anyone know if this is correct? I don't really want to have to go to a small claims court to get my money back... Thanks

dazza.mk

Heath_and_Heather wrote: »

Hi all this is my first post on this website,

I recent purchased a bike online and when delivered I realised the frame size did not fit me. I advised the retailer within 2 days of receiving the bike that I would unfortunately have to return it. I returned the bike at my own cost to the retailer, but the retailer refused to accept the bike saying the tyres were dirty.

I checked the Distance Selling Regulations and am convinced I am entitled to a full refund so I pursued my credit card company for a section 75 refund. They have agreed that I am entitled to a full refund however have advised me to pursue under a small claims court.

They believe that section 75 only concerns itself with the sale of goods act, (ie if the product was faulty, parts missing etc) but they state there is no connection between section 75 and the Distance Selling regulations.

Does anyone know if this is correct? I don't really want to have to go to a small claims court to get my money back... Thanks

They are wrong, Section 75 means that they have the same liability as the retailer, Sale of Goods or any other legislation.

pvt

In effect S75 simply says that the CC company is jointly and severably liable to you should a refund be appropriate. It has nothing directly to do with your consumer rights.

If you have a dispute with a retailer, and the retailer will not refund your money, it is unfair of you to expect the CC company to arbitrate. That is what civil courts are for, and why they have said you should pursue that route. If the court says you should be refunded, and the retailer does not comply, then that is when S75 jumps into action and you get the refund from the CC company.

As regards the issue of refund by the retailer. I'm no expert on the distance selling regulations - I'm sure others will be along to offer their advice shortly.

dtaylor84

pvt wrote: »

If you have a dispute with a retailer, and the retailer will not refund your money, it is unfair of you to expect the CC company to arbitrate. That is what civil courts are for, and why they have said you should pursue that route. If the court says you should be refunded, and the retailer does not comply, then that is when S75 jumps into action and you get the refund from the CC company..

It is not up to the CC company to "arbitrate", but they are jointly liable. There is no need to pursue the retailer in the court, you can pursue the CC company instead.

pvt

dtaylor84 wrote: »

It is not up to the CC company to "arbitrate", but they are jointly liable. There is no need to pursue the retailer in the court, you can pursue the CC company instead.

Don't disagree. I think in this instance the CC company are in effect saying the OP should do that.

But on re-reading the OP I see the CC Co have also said the OP is entitled to a full refund. So it is difficult to see how they can refuse the refund if that is their position.

redpete

Have you asked the shop for a refund of the full amount less the cost of two new tyres? This would seem a reasonable outcome for you having ordered a bike that is the wrong size for you.

bris

Although the Op is entitled to a refund, they failed to take reasonable care of the bike. Any claim made against the retailer would be counterclaimed by them.
It should be the other way round where the OP is refunded and the retailer takes the OP to court, but It may end up having the same result.

OP you didn't need to go out on the bike to know it was the wrong size for you, the DSR are there so you can test the goods in your own home, not go riding around it. I'm with the retailer on this one, but as a retailer I would be because to many people take advantage of this type of scenario.

oscar52

redpete wrote: »

Have you asked the shop for a refund of the full amount less the cost of two new tyres? This would seem a reasonable outcome for you having ordered a bike that is the wrong size for you.

The OP hasnt stated they ordered the wrong size, they said it did not fit them. It is equally possible that the company delivered the wrong size.

The OP also doesnt suggest they have been oout and about on the bike, so why should they buy new tyres for it.

oscar52

bris wrote: »

OP you didn't need to go out on the bike to know it was the wrong size for you, the DSR are there so you can test the goods in your own home, not go riding around it.

Where does the OP state they went for a ride on it?

McKneff

Would other people press the Spam button for the idiot who posted no. 7 please.

dazza.mk

redpete wrote: »

Have you asked the shop for a refund of the full amount less the cost of two new tyres? This would seem a reasonable outcome for you having ordered a bike that is the wrong size for you.

OP ordered the bike online, therefore you need to consider impacts / liabilities on the retailer of the Distance Selling Regulations before consider anything reasonable.