Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

bod1467

seguna wrote: »

How I paid?
Credit Card, on a paper form direct to the Supplier.

Please clarify EXACTLY what that means.

meer53

If the debit on your account is to Paypal, there is no Debtor/Creditor relationship so your Section 75 claim will be rejected.

seguna

bod1467 wrote: »

Please clarify EXACTLY what that means.

It means....I was given a paper form, which I filled in, with my name, address, card no. & details and signed it!
Handed it to their staff and they went away and processed it.

I have a copy of the form and there's no mention of PayPal, even as a payment processor/merchant services provider.

dalesrider

seguna wrote: »

But how can this be right? It makes a nonsense out of the intent of Section 75.

When S75 was set up. CC's were not very common and it was more for HP and credit agreements such as car purchase. Where the credit supplier had a direct link to the retailer/purchase.
Not as now where people are expecting their CC to cover things that they have no control over.

S75 really needs a massive overhaul to bring it upto date for the real world now.

But that is taking this thread off topic

seguna wrote: »

Assuming every supplier out there accepted credit cards which they then internally processed via PayPal (or other similiar entity), and that this changed the relationship between the Debtor and Supplier such as to invalidate Section 75, how can that be right?

As above S75 was never devised for the current state of play with credit cards.
But a core part was the debitor/creditor relationship. Which when a 3rd party is introduced taking the funds means that your card provider link is with PP in this case.
Fair or right. Again this is not what S75 was brought in for.

seguna wrote: »

It would completely defeat the purpose! It used to be that in the past, scam companies almost never accepted Credit Card payments for this reason. Now, it would seem they can do as they please.:(

Well if they process transactions in this way. Yes.

seguna wrote: »

Someone has suggested starting a Small Claims against the Creditor and letting a judge decide but I'm not so sure.

Well you were happy to let your CC decide on the case, and hope they would cave in and give you your money back... Even though they had no part or choice in the transaction. Given how much time/effort you have already invested. As well as feeling you have a good case.
Then the cost of a small claims case is worth the shot. Remember if you win, then you get your costs back.
Add in you state that there were others on the course who were not happy.
How about getting together and give it a go. If one of you wins, then the rest can then take their cases to get their money back.

seguna

meer53 wrote: »

If the debit on your account is to Paypal, there is no Debtor/Creditor relationship so your Section 75 claim will be rejected.

This is where it got hairy. The debit is NOT just to PayPal. It's to the company with a link to PayPal in the name reference. i.e. Obviously I can't give exact details but it's similiar to:
'PayPal - XYZ TRAINING COMPANY'.

dalesrider

seguna wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with going down the S75 route - I simply consider it easier and more efficient than taking the supplier to court. That would be a harder and more involved battle.

So you were happy to use the retailer in the 1st place, but when things went pear shaped you change to hit someone who has not part in the transaction other than being your card provider and a easy target.

seguna wrote: »

Bottom line, when a CC company honors an S75 claim, they they not usually charge it to the Supplier's account with them? The only time it comes off the CC's profits (and thereby impacts consumers in general) is if the Supplier is in liquidation or unreachable to the CC.

If only....
No it comes out of the big pot.... They do not claim it back from the company.
If they could they would believe me....

Remember you can use the small claims court. A CC co cannot. It would need to go via full blown court and have all the resulting costs.
So even if you are looking at a claim of say £10K its not cost effective to try to claim it back via the courts.


S75 should really be brought upto date and only if you have exhausted ALL your standard legal routs can you then look at your card provider.

dalesrider

seguna wrote: »

This is where it got hairy. The debit is NOT just to PayPal. It's to the company with a link to PayPal in the name reference. i.e. Obviously I can't give exact details but it's similiar to:
'PayPal - XYZ TRAINING COMPANY'.

But as Paypal are only contracted to move money from your credit card to the retailer which they have done.
Then there can be no breech of contract/misrepresentation, as they have done what was requested.

The same stands if you use Amazon marketplace or Google checkout.

As I said the whole S75 needs to be brought upto date for the whole internet and payment providers.

Slowhand

seguna wrote: »

This is where it got hairy. The debit is NOT just to PayPal. It's to the company with a link to PayPal in the name reference. i.e. Obviously I can't give exact details but it's similiar to:
'PayPal - XYZ TRAINING COMPANY'.

Is that just not the PayPal account name. Like 'PayPal - ABC Seguna' could be your account name?

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

Well you were happy to let your CC decide on the case, and hope they would cave in and give you your money back... Even though they had no part or choice in the transaction.
They did't BUT they have leverage with the SUPPLIER. This is one of the benefits of S75. Bad suppliers are supposed to get rooted out or lose the facility for offering Card Payments.
Given how much time/effort you have already invested. As well as feeling you have a good case.
Then the cost of a small claims case is worth the shot. Remember if you win, then you get your costs back.
I hear you BUT, small claims is not just one's feelings or rights etc It's also about the PROBABILITY of success. Small claims may be low cost BUT it still costs!!! I'd rather pursue an action I'm more confident I'll win. Also from experience Lenders tend to settle these types of actions early rather then go to court.
Add in you state that there were others on the course who were not happy.
How about getting together and give it a go. If one of you wins, then the rest can then take their cases to get their money back.
Again, you have a point. But perhaps we're all too lazy or just can't be bothered etc. But taking regular businesses/people to court is not something I'm keen on, banks is a different matter.

Either way, I think it's WRONG what the CC company has said in this instance so I can't even take this up with PayPal. They could have rejected the S75 on the basis of no valid claim, but here they've said it comes down to PayPal being my supplier...can't be right imo.

seguna

Slowhand wrote: »

Is that just not the PayPal account name. Like 'PayPal - ABC Seguna' could be your account name?

Sorry not sure what you mean? I HAVE a PayPal account which I generally use for payments on Ebay and other online transactions. That is ALL I use it for.

I did not pay for this tiem using my PayPal account.

The reference to PayPal on my card statement is purely down to the Supplier using PayPal in some way as their merchant service provider.