Section 75 and Gold Coin

Vymura

I am contemplating purchasing a number of Gold Sovereign Coins as one lot from an established dealer to (hopefully) improve returns on savings. The dealer concerned allows Credit and Debit card payments (CC and DC) but requires full payment before despatch of the items and levies an extra charge for CC payments.

My payment will amount to just under £5K and in these days of recession I am wary of the trader going into receivership or administration between the time of payment and the time of despatch.

Because of this possibility – and the additional fee for credit card payment, I am contemplating paying (say) £100 by CC and the balance by DC, to obtain the protection of section 75 against default.

I have two questions I would like advice on please. I understand that respndents have no liability for the accuracy of any advice they may give.

1. Gold sovereign coins are still coins of the realm, though their value is many times face value. Does this count as purchasing ‘money’ and invalidate Section 75 protection? Or is this only if I used a CC at an ATM?
2. I would be buying about 20 coins in a single transaction. Does this count as 20 separate items and invalidate Section 75 protection? Or is it like buying a three piece suite? I would be hoping to get a ‘quantity discount’ on the individual coin cost, from the total price.

Thank you in anticipation.

InsideInsurance

2) Unless they are in some ways a set then they would be 20 individual items but as long as each one is valued over £100 then you have protection.

1) I dont know, I suspect they arent considered cash but wouldnt want to be quoted on it

0) You could pay less on the CC, just the individual items must be over £100 and under £30,000, there is no minimum amount that must be paid by credit

dalesrider

Vymura wrote: »

My payment will amount to just under £5K and in these days of recession I am wary of the trader going into receivership or administration between the time of payment and the time of despatch.

Because of this possibility – and the additional fee for credit card payment, I am contemplating paying (say) £100 by CC and the balance by DC, to obtain the protection of section 75 against default.

I have two questions I would like advice on please. I understand that respndents have no liability for the accuracy of any advice they may give.

1. Gold sovereign coins are still coins of the realm, though their value is many times face value. Does this count as purchasing ‘money’ and invalidate Section 75 protection? Or is this only if I used a CC at an ATM?
2. I would be buying about 20 coins in a single transaction. Does this count as 20 separate items and invalidate Section 75 protection? Or is it like buying a three piece suite? I would be hoping to get a ‘quantity discount’ on the individual coin cost, from the total price.

Thank you in anticipation.

1st off you won't need S75 if they do not arrive.
1st option is chargeback. Quicker & easier.
S75 relates to item value as well, so if your 20 coins each only cost £99.99 then you would not be covered.
In effect you could make a payment of 1p via the credit card and still have S75 protection.

Same protection on a visa debit & visa credit on the chargeback side.

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

1st off you won't need S75 if they do not arrive.
1st option is chargeback. Quicker & easier.

It's the second time you mention the chargeback as an alternative to the section 75 claim - and both times the people were concerned about companies going bust before delivering, although in this case it's less clear.

dullnote wrote: »

...Also when talking to the card company was told If she had purchased anything and the company went bust she would not be covered, even when me father inlaw was alive.

Vymura wrote: »

....I am wary of the trader going into receivership or administration between the time of payment and the time of despatch....

I am no expert in this, but my understanding is that if the company goes bust, there is no a party that the CC company can charge back.

planteria

where is the dealer? i would go to see them, pay, and walk out with my coins.

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

I am no expert in this, but my understanding is that if the company goes bust, there is no a party that the CC company can charge back.

But I am... My experiance is....

It makes no diffrence if the company is still trading or gone bust. A chargeback can still be actioned.
The funds are reclaimed from the retailers merchant bank. How they get it back is upto them. Many will hold a bond if they fear a company if close to the wall.

Now getting ready for a rash of Jessops claims

Originally Posted by dullnote
...Also when talking to the card company was told If she had purchased anything and the company went bust she would not be covered, even when me father inlaw was alive.

That statement is a load of rubbish and would see the card provider up in front of FOS, if they failed to action anything.
I action chargebacks ALL the time for additonal card holders. All it requires is the main card holders permission to action it.

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

But I am... ...

Well, then those experts working for Which seem to be no experts too:

Claims must be addressed to the bank that provides your debit or credit card, which in turn will put in a request to the merchant's bank.
As a result, you could get your money back from the merchant's bank if the money is there to be recovered.
But, there are no guarantees your bank will be able to recover the money through chargeback, or that the trader will accept that you were justified in taking the money back.
The trader could argue that you're in breach of contract for not paying.

So, according to Which, ultimately it's the trader that pays, not their bank.
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-and-debit-cards/

Of course, a company going bust doesn't necessarily mean that there are no funds to pay for the chargeback. So, in some cases it might work indeed.

Also, it's a common knowledge that often a CC company can pay you money back very quickly, but later can claim it back later if the claim is unsuccessful or unsubstantiated.

That statement is a load of rubbish and would see the card provider up in front of FOS, if they failed to action anything.
I action chargebacks ALL the time for additonal card holders. All it requires is the main card holders permission to action it.

Well, after some reading I see that the chargeback is a Visa/Mastercard/Amex procedure that has nothing to do with the laws (and, hence, almost nothing with FOS - unless the CC company does break the scheme rules). And if you do something in your CC company, this doesn't mean that all other CC companies do the same.

M.Lewis wrote:

Chargeback is nowhere near as strong as Section 75 for credit card purchases. The key difference is that when you complain under Section 75, the credit card company itself is legally liable, with chargeback it's just about the Visa/Mastercard/Amex process and that is nowhere near as weighty.

dalesrider

Do which action chargebacks ? Sorry, No.

Do they see the result of these chargebacks when the retailer represents? No.

As a aside, if the retailer is not longer trading, then they cannot reject a chargeback


All I can go by is many years experience in dealing with these. Not sat behind a desk writing jurno reports.


One thing about Which....

I have never ever seen a consumer association or retailer charge so many diffrent prices for the same product. from £1.00 to £9.99 or more a month....
Perhaps they need to take a long hard look at how they operate themselves. Before they start picking on other retailers and their pricing :rotfl:

Also, it's a common knowledge that often a CC company can pay you money back very quickly, but later can claim it back later if the claim is unsuccessful or unsubstantiated.

Very ture, which is why customers are advised that the retailer has the right to reject.
There is never ever a 100% guarantee of the refund staying.

chattychappy

Ulitmately it is S75 that gives a cardholder a statutory right against a CC (subject to conditions being met) for breach of contract (or misrep) concerning the original supply. Nothing else. The ultimate adjudication would be a civil court.

Unless chargeback is incorporated into your T+Cs, (it's not in mine) then effectively the CC is "doing you a favour" by "helping". However the FOS has said given the availability of the scheme it would usually be unfair for CCs not to use chargeback scheme when available. The ultimate adjudication would be the FOS deciding whether the CC had processed your claim properly rather than whether you are owed the money. Ie if the CC had failed to process a chargeback properly and because of that you had lost out, you might be compensated. But if the CC had made reasonable efforts and the chargeback failed, you wouldn't be entitled to anything - even if it was clear that contractually the merchant had failed.

dalesrider

Also if a chargeback fails for some reason. Then there is always the posibility of S75 in critera is met.

chattychappy

dalesrider wrote: »

Also if a chargeback fails for some reason. Then there is always the posibility of S75 in critera is met.

You always seem to regard S75 and chargeback as two parallel/alternative processes/options. This may indeed be the practical way you work internally at the CC.

But I think people must understand their legal position. It is S75 that gives the consumer the right to make a claim on the CC. If the consumer feels they have a S75 claim, then they should assert this from the start. Whether the CC processes this as a chargeback or not is up to the CC. The language of chargeback is that the CC is "helping" you get the money back from the merchant, a bit like it is some sort of advocate working on your behalf. This is not the legal position under s75 at all. Of course chargeback won't be enough anyway if the consumer only put £1 of the transaction on the CC.

If the claim is outside of S75 (eg below £100), then indeed the consumer is left with asking the CC to consider chargeback and the backing of the FOS saying that the CC must at least try if the rules are met.

So whilst yes, you might say if chargback fails there is a possibility of S75, this is a CC-centric view. The legal position is that S75 gives you your rights - if you fall outside of this, then chargeback might still help.