Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

FOS newsletter

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?
No, just the payment form which shows WHO I was transacting with (definitely not PayPal or a subsidiary thereof), what I was paying for (the course), the amount and the usual card details, signature line etc

Thanks for trying to help Dalesrider.
I have to challenge the applicability of the above quote from the FOS though. It seems what's referred to here is one where there is a clear AGENCY relationship between a Supplier and an agent/subsidiary of the actual Supplier, who would be expected to hold the card payment service facility with the Creditor.

This is clearly not the case here. PayPal is NOT in the business of providing training courses through subsidiaries!..so this would not apply here. I'm pretty sure it's just some sort of merchant payment service arrangement.

seguna

mo786uk wrote: »

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.

Just to be 300% clear, I DID NOT pay through PayPal.
I DID NOT pay through a credit card linked to a PayPal account.

As far as I was aware, PayPal had nothing to do with this transaction. PayPal have only shown up because their name appears as part of the payment reference on my Credit Card statement!

seguna

mo786uk wrote: »

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.
If you have his details or the firm name, I'd be really grateful.

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.

Thanks, that's certainly the way I see it.
Rgds

visidigi

https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/phone

It looks like they've used that sort of thing and then as a result the merchant services are being provided by PayPal and the card issue is refusing based on that...

If that's the case they are duly wrong as PayPal is only providing the merchant services to the seller...

bris

https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/home-merchant
They are using the £20 pro version, it doesnt need an app and the details provided by the OP on paper are manually imputed on a regular PC.

visidigi

But either which way surely this is a problem the merchants/issuers need to resolve that surely shouldn't penalise the buyer. In this circumstance

mo786uk

Whether you knew PayPal were involved or not is irrelevant IMO

Look at this case:
Black Horse Limited v Christopher Langford 2007 EWHC 907 (QB)

http://www.wragge.com/legal_news_1316.asp


It is about s56 of the CCA 1974 and they found that the use of an intermediary broke the relationship - regardless of whether the customer knew. Although from what I understand this case could be overruled if a similar thing went to court again.

meer53

seguna wrote: »

Just to be 300% clear, I DID NOT pay through PayPal.
I DID NOT pay through a credit card linked to a PayPal account.

As far as I was aware, PayPal had nothing to do with this transaction. PayPal have only shown up because their name appears as part of the payment reference on my Credit Card statement!

The debit on your account was to Paypal. Your money went to Paypal and then to the supplier. You need to lodge a formal complaint to your CC issuer to take this further.

seguna

meer53 wrote: »

The debit on your account was to Paypal. Your money went to Paypal and then to the supplier. You need to lodge a formal complaint to your CC issuer to take this further.

Ok thanks.

How do you propose I do that?
I've already lodged the S74 claim which has been rejected and I'm at the referral to FOS stage.

On what basis would I file a new formal complaint with the CC and to what end? My CC has no control on how the Supplier chose to process the payment do they?

mo786uk

If you are saying that s75 should apply then it will come down to a legal debate on whether PayPal being in the middle 'breaks' the S75 relationship.

My understanding is that the FOS think that when PayPal is used S75 doesn't apply - therefore you might wait a long time and find the FOS has ruled against you.

The consequences of S75 applying when PayPal is used is MASSIVE. It would bring millions of transactions within the scope of S75 and therefore the FOS are unlikely to make such a ruling. Instead the Courts are the best way to do it.