Visa Debit and Visa Credit card difference advice

bensnanny2

I have heard that we can get the same protection from a Visa Debit card as a Credit card. Is this correct? We are booking a holiday and don't want to spend more than we need to. Will check our travel insurance too, of course, but if anyone can advise, that would be great. I have had conflicting advice from two banks.
Thanks.

grumbler

MSE articles:

• Section 75 refunds
• Visa, Mastercard & Amex Chargeback Protection for debit card purchases

dalesrider

bensnanny2 wrote: »

I have heard that we can get the same protection from a Visa Debit card as a Credit card. Is this correct?
Thanks.

Pretty much.

Same chargeback rights on Visa Debit & Credit.

Added bonus of a Credit is S75 cover for breach of contract misrepresentation. For purchases between £100 & £30K ( item price)

So just put the deposit on a CC and your are well covered.

TBH, if booking a holiday. Then debit has cover for the co going bust.
Just watch out for co's that book flights & accomadation seperatly.
As if the airline goes bust, the hotel is still avaiable....

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

...debit has cover for the co going bust.....

No, it doesn't, although you can be lucky sometimes.

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

No, it doesn't, although you can be lucky sometimes.

Mmm... Perhaps I better stop doing chargebacks on companies that have gone under then......

Sorry, Grumbler but you are totally wrong here.

Now expecting next comment of you can't clain back money when there isn't any.

yangptangkipperbang

dalesrider wrote: »

Same chargeback rights on Visa Debit & Credit.

I'm afraid that this statement just isn't so..........

A credit card is protected fairly substantially by Sect 75.

Debit cards do offer a similar type of protection (the so-called "chargeback") - but this is solely at the goodwill of the card issuer - if he wishes to withdraw any cover he offers, on an individual or wholesale basis, there is very little the card holder can do. As a general statement - a credit card transaction is protected by Law, a debit card isn't.

dalesrider

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

I'm afraid that this statement just isn't so..........

A credit card is protected fairly substantially by Sect 75.

Debit cards do offer a similar type of protection (the so-called "chargeback") - but this is solely at the goodwill of the card issuer - if he wishes to withdraw any cover he offers, on an individual or wholesale basis, there is very little the card holder can do. As a general statement - a credit card transaction is protected by Law, a debit card isn't.

Given I work chargebacks on a daily basis....

And Visa would revoke the card issuer for failing to abide by their agreement.

Chargebacks are NOT at the GOODWILL of the issuer. They are part and parcel of the Visa/Mastercard regulations that banks and retails have to agree too.

A example of this is the reason most banks dropped Meastro and went to Visa as Maestro had very little consumer protection. Only 2 chargebacks on disputes.

I see that you quote S75. Yes its a legal right. But can just as easily be rejected by the card provider if the customer cannot prove their case.

It's amazing the number of people that come on screaming I WANT S75 paperwork.
When you have got them to calm down and explain exactly what the issue is and say. I can resolve this for you now. Rather than you having to provide T/C and other paperwork. They all say well someone on a forum on the internet said I HAVE TOO SAY S75.
To get any action.

So you would happly advise someone to pay a extra 3% on a sale for no extra protection????

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

...I see that you quote S75. Yes its a legal right. But can just as easily be rejected by the card provider if the customer cannot prove their case.

If the consumer thinks differently about the proofs, they can take the provider to a court. Not the case for a debit card when they can sue only the supplier (that has gone bust unfortunately).

Perhaps I better stop doing chargebacks on companies that have gone under then......

As I said, one can be lucky that the company have not ceased to exist yet and still has the account with money that can be charged. Of course, CC providers do their best to get the money under chargeback, otherwise they can end up paying from their own pocket under s.75.

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

As I said, one can be lucky that the company have not ceased to exist yet and still has the account with money that can be charged..

See, this is what happens on the internet. People post things that are not true..

Now expecting next comment of you can't claim back money when there isn't any.

Any chargebacks are not claimed back from the co when they are no longer trading.
They come from their bank. Which is why banks will ring fence funds when they think a retailer is in trouble.

So the fact they do not have funds make no diffrence at all.

Also many forget that the vast majority of holiday co's are ATOL/ABTA bonded as well.

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

Any chargebacks are not claimed back from the co when they are no longer trading.
They come from their bank. Which is why banks will ring fence funds when they think a retailer is in trouble....

Ha-ha.
You might be very experienced indeed in practice, but you are delusional about the theory.
Unless the company in trouble owes something to their bank, the bank doesn't have any powers to 'ring-fence' anything. And if there is no any ring-fenced money, you will not get a penny from the bank. As I said, in such cases chargeback is a matter of luck, unlike s.75 (provided that the CC company doesn't go bust as well).

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

, you will not get a penny from the bank. As I said, in such cased chargeback is a matter of luck,

Well we must be very lucky then as never had one rejected chargeback when a company has failed.

So can you stop saying that they fail, when you have no idea about them.