Does Section 75 cover counterfeit goods?

dalesrider

thenudeone wrote: »

Why shouldn't banks take responsibility for the merchants they allow to use the system?

If all s75/chargeback claims had to be paid by the bank who provided the relevant merchant account, this would focus their minds considerably.

And perhaps if people took a bit more care, then many issues such as this would not happen.

Why should section 75 expect a bank to pay a customer, when there are legal consumer rights avaiable.
Would it not be fair that before a customer turns to a bank they have to exhaust their consumer rights. Not just expect the bank to roll over and pay them.

Chargebacks are reclaimed from the retailer or of the retailer is no longer trading their merchant bank.

Section 75 claims are paid by you and me out of charges when you use your card and higher interest....

SaLoGo

My other half bought some golf clubs from an online retailer. When they were delivered it became apparent they were fake. The seller wouldn't allow him to return them for a refund so he claimed from his CC. He got a full refund after around 2 weeks.

System

dalesrider wrote: »

And perhaps if people took a bit more care, then many issues such as this would not happen.

Why should section 75 expect a bank to pay a customer, when there are legal consumer rights avaiable.
Would it not be fair that before a customer turns to a bank they have to exhaust their consumer rights. Not just expect the bank to roll over and pay them.

Chargebacks are reclaimed from the retailer or of the retailer is no longer trading their merchant bank.

Section 75 claims are paid by you and me out of charges when you use your card and higher interest....

Normally when it comes to counterfeit goods the retailer is in places such as China etc. Unfortunately consumer rights do not stretch that far and the only recourse is through your CC.

chattychappy

thenudeone wrote: »

Why shouldn't banks take responsibility for the merchants they allow to use the system?
...
The fact that banks in countries with high levels of counterfeiting (such as China) which have signed up to VISA or MC agreements, don't even make basic checks about whether a large merchant is legitimate or not, is a major problem with an obvious solution.

I think the problem is that different countries have different regulatory environments. S75 is a UK thing applying to CCs. Other countries have not imposed such a regime. S75 seems arbitrary to me - afterall it was never applied to banks in respect of cheques/debit cards or the post office in respect of postal orders.

UK CCs cannot realistically do the required level of due diligence on overseas companies and selectively "block" them or insist that visa/mastercard performs this function.

dalesrider wrote: »

And perhaps if people took a bit more care, then many issues such as this would not happen.
...
Section 75 claims are paid by you and me out of charges when you use your card and higher interest....

Agree. It gets even more ridiculous that people can gain the full value of this protection by simply putting £1 through the CC. I'm sure this was never the intention of the Act when it was passed in 1974 when the world of credit was very different.

IMHO, s75 amounts to an insurance policy that is imposed upon us and that we all pay for. I would prefer it if the CCs were free to offer it to those that choose to buy it. Even without s75, there is still a basic level or protection provided by the networks through chargeback and regulation (fraudulent use of cards etc)

yangptangkipperbang

thenudeone wrote: »

Why shouldn't banks take responsibility for the merchants they allow to use the system?

You could equally say - why shouldn't customers take responsibility for their own actions rather than expect the banks to bail them out with other peoples money ?

There is only one reason why people buy "branded" stuff from abroad, via the internet - because it is advertised as being MUCH cheaper. The risk that this stuff is counterfeit or even non-existent is very high.

Why should the majority of "sensible" shoppers subsidise those who fall for these con-tricks ?

yangptangkipperbang

chattychappy wrote: »

Even without s75, there is still a basic level or protection provided by the networks through chargeback

I would bet a penny to a pound that as "chargeback" is a purely voluntary scheme it would vanish if S75 did not exist.

Plxply

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

I would bet a penny to a pound that as "chargeback" is a purely voluntary scheme it would vanish if S75 did not exist.

Luckily these are schemes implemented by Visa and MasterCard, which are available even in countries which don't offer S75 and are globally applied. After all, the card networks wouldn't want online shopping to be known as risky or unsafe as it would take a considerable chunk out of their profits. Just imagine if consumers didn't trust that you could buy a genuine designer product online.

pqrdef

Visa and Mastercard have a long history of not caring what sort of firm they do business with, so long as they get their percentage. Copyright theft, counterfeiting, child pornography, all grist to their mill. Greed is good.

Their get-out is to encourage the use of third-party payment firms, which collect payments on behalf of dodgy businesses, so they don't have to deal with those businesses directly.

yangptangkipperbang

Plxply wrote: »

Luckily these are schemes implemented by Visa and MasterCard, which are available even in countries which don't offer S75 and are globally applied. After all, the card networks wouldn't want online shopping to be known as risky or unsafe as it would take a considerable chunk out of their profits.

The "chargeback" schemes were introduced by the finance houses only after S75 and similar legislation was introduced in Western Europe and N America.

Plxply wrote: »

Just imagine if consumers didn't trust that you could buy a genuine designer product online.

That is a totally spurious statement.
There are too many people who think that they can buy branded items from somewhere in China at 30% of the UK price - why should others subsidise their stupidity/greed ?

dalesrider

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

I would bet a penny to a pound that as "chargeback" is a purely voluntary scheme it would vanish if S75 did not exist.

They are not voluntary. A retailer signs upto these when they agree to take a Visa/mastercard.

These are over and above your consumer rights under the SofGA or distance selling regulations.
You basic consumers regs require YOU the conusmer to get of your backside and do some work..
Visa/mastercard chargeback in most cases require zero effort other than picking up a phone and speaking to your card provider...

So you need to thank Visa et al for their regs or consumers would need to get their hands far more dirty to resolve most issues.:T