Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

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.

Again you are arguing for the industry and assuming that I made payment via PayPal. As I've already said, I paid using a CC direct to the supplier. The fact that they've used PayPal to process it has nothing to do with me nor should it affect my S75 rights, or that of any other consumer in such circumstances.

Amazon marketplace, Google checkout etc are online payment systems - I've made it clear I did not use any of these mechanisms.

bod1467

Slowhand means that if someone paid YOU via your Paypal account, then on THEIR statement it would say "Paypal - Your account name".

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

Then the cost of a small claims case is worth the shot. Remember if you win, then you get your costs back.
And if you lose?
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.

True, but getting hold of them is another thing and persuading them to join in some type of action is altogether different. Also, not everyone that's unhappy necessarily wants their money back or is prepared to fight for it. I might consider that route if it gets there.

seguna

bod1467 wrote: »

Slowhand means that if someone paid YOU via your Paypal account, then on THEIR statement it would say "Paypal - Your account name".

So the fact that on MY CC statement it says "Paypal - XYZ Trading Company" means what?

I did not send money to PayPal to pay the Supplier to pay my CC.
I authorised my CC to pay the Supplier. If the supplier then drewdown funds from my CC using THEIR PayPal account, what's that got to do with me? And how does that then make PayPal MY supplier?

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

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.
They're my card provider, and when I let them (which sadly is most of the time), they make a lot of money out of me in interest! They DO have a vested interest and by the way, I didn't write CCA1974 or S75!

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...
What big pot? You seem to know more than me about the inner workings of S75 and how chargebacks between companies work. However I think you're possibly wrong here. There is definitely some kind of hit/detriment/cost/consequence to a supplier when the CC does a chargeback - they don't escape scot free. Just ask PayPal themselves - they've closed people's accounts and sent in debt collectors etc when people have done chargebacks with their CC against them! I've read stories of people losing their PayPal accounts when they did S75 chargebacks against PayPal from the linked CC! That wouldn't be happening if the chargebacks weren't costing PayPal in some way and it was all being borne by the CC as you allege above.

Btw, I don't think I have any recourse against PayPal as there's no direct relationship. If anyone knows otherwise please comment.

Thanks all.

bris

Paypal are also a merchant who clear CC payments from customers via their virtual payment clearing service, so the op is right you can have paypal as the merchant without your knowledge.

The problem still is double edged though, even if the OP does overcome the Paypal link then he still needs to prove the course was misrepresented. Not that easy to do if the course was completed or exactly what is in the written contract, verbal will count for nothing when their is a signature outlining the course features.
Not liking or believing the course to be inadequate does not qualify for S75 there would need to be a definite breach.

seguna

bris wrote: »

Paypal are also a merchant who clear CC payments from customers via their virtual payment clearing service, so the op is right you can have paypal as the merchant without your knowledge.

The problem still is double edged though, even if the OP does overcome the Paypal link then he still needs to prove the course was misrepresented. Not that easy to do if the course was completed or exactly what is in the written contract, verbal will count for nothing when their is a signature outlining the course features.
Not liking or believing the course to be inadequate does not qualify for S75 there would need to be a definite breach.

Thanks.
For the purposes of this thread, please assume that my S75 claim is valid due to misrepresentation and/or breach of contract as outline in my earlier posts.

The issue is how to address this payment link issue which the CC is using to reject the claim rather than the substance of whether or not there was a definite S75 breach.
I'm now thinking of referring this to the FOS, which I've avoided up till now due to how slow they usually are. Also, should they rule against me, I wouldn't want it to adversely affect a small claims action initiated by me.

seguna

Here is the sanitized text of the basis for rejection as offered by the CC, lifted right out of their latest rejection letter:-

However, under the terms of the Act, there has to be a ‘debtor-creditor-supplier’ agreement. In other words there must be a relationship between you (the debtor), the Bank (the creditor) and the supplier. In this case, your credit card statement shows that payment was made to a company called PayPal, and therefore they become the supplier, having received the credit card payment through a pre-existing arrangement via the card scheme network. Your claim for breach of contract, misrepresentation is against XXXXXXXXXXX Ltd, and as such the Bank has been unable to establish a debtor-creditor- supplier relationship with XXXXXXXXX Ltd. Therefore, the Bank considers that Section 75 does not apply to your complaint.

Please NOTE that while the CC say payment was MADE to a company called PayPal, please note that this is just their chosen interpretation. The truth is that
1. I made payment to the supplier with no reference to PayPal, whatsoever.
2. On the card statement, it shows "PayPal - XYZ Ltd" as the payment reference, so it;s both not either or.

Why then does the CC ignore the dual reference to BOTH entities instead of just one? If it said "XYZ Ltd - PayPal" would they concede the Supplier relationship with XYZ Ltd or still insist it was PayPal only?

Sorry but it stinks and looks like they're trying to fob me off!

dalesrider

FOS newsletter

There can be problems if the card is accepted by a different business from the one that provided the goods and services. We see this situation most frequently in connection with timeshare and holiday club membership, where it is not unusual for the timeshare or holiday club company to use the credit card facilities of another business. The business accepting the payment may simply be acting as agent for the supplier, in which case section 75 will not apply. In order for section 75 to apply, the business that accepts the payment and the supplier have to be "associates", as defined in the Consumer Credit Act.

While they did not make it clear how they would process the payment, and you were not aware of paypal being used they were.

Did you receive any invoices from the company?

I can only think that the co are using PP as their merchant bank. Which does make you again, wonder about the company. A FOS ruling against your S75 claim would not adversely affect a small claims action. As they would be ruling on the link between debtor and creditor. NOT your actual claim against the company for the quality of the course.

So YES take you case to FOS. But remember to do this you have to complain to the CC co 1st and exhaust their complaints process. So you are looking at 8 weeks there, before you can go to FOS.
Although they may give you informal advice 1st.

I wish you well.

mo786uk

I wouldn't take the FOS too seriously on case law issues as they shy away from trying to be a court and will often not even follow case law. You will be wasting your time trying to get the FOS to accept S75 applies to PayPal transactions

The bottom line is that you will probably have to go to court and it will almost certainly be a case that will be appealed if you win - therefore you will need the time and inclination. You will also need money but you might find a consumer organisation willing to help fund your costs.

Last year I met a barrister who specialised in credit issues - we discussed this briefly and he advised that he had done some work on this subject for an organisation and he was of the view that S75 could apply to PayPal but it depended on the agreement PayPal had with the money receiver. Therefore sometimes S75 might apply and other tiems it might not - depending on the agreement the business has with PayPal.

TBH I cannot remember all of the technical details. But if PayPal are merely processing a payment onto the service provider/supplier then they are not a supplier for the purposes of the CCA IMO.