Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

mo786uk

dalesrider wrote: »

Can't be fraud as OP got the course.

You can still have fraud when you get the product. Infact the whole point of a fraud in some situations is to get someone to agree to buy something so that the fraudster makes money.

Agricolae

mo786uk wrote: »

You can still have fraud when you get the product. Infact the whole point of a fraud in some situations is to get someone to agree to buy something so that the fraudster makes money.

That's a different kind of fraud to the kind dalesrider is talking about, and significantly more difficult to prove.

He was referring to the kind of fraud where someone else uses your card, or card details, without your permission.

The kind of fraud you and the OP are referring to is probably fraudulent misrepresentation. That is to say that the course provider made false statements of fact to the OP with the intent to deceive him and cause him to rely on said statements when deciding whether or not to go ahead and buy a place on the course.

However, I entirely agree with your point that the courts are best placed to make a ruling on PayPal and section 75. I agree that FOS is very unlikely to uphold this, but they probably would in future if there was a clear court ruling to say PayPal transactions are "in" for section 75.

seguna

mo786uk wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your input. This is the nub of it I think.

However the difficulty I'm faced with is that this is NOT a PayPal transaction in the normal sense in that I did not link my credit card to PayPal and then use PayPal to make payment, as one might on Ebay or Amazon etc. I paid the Supplier with my CC (or so I thought) and it was the Supplier who then processed via PayPal (as it appears).

To me that ceratinly does not qualify as a regular PayPal transaction. I'm writing to PayPal now to ask for their opinion on how it might have happened from their point of view. I suspect they won't be able to say much as I had no direct dealing with them on this whatsoever.

seguna

bris wrote: »

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.

Probably, but again this pertains to ONLINE businesses and ONLINE payments. This is not what I did...

seguna

mo786uk wrote: »

Whether you knew PayPal were involved or not is irrelevant IMO

I'm not being hard headed but do these types of cases really apply here? There was a proper business relationship between Blackhorse and the other actors in this particular case. In my case PayPal were merely the merchant payment processor, with no visible representation by the Supplier.

Besides that, the statement by the judge that "The purpose of the Act [Consumer Credit Act] was to protect consumers and that it would make a serious inroad into that protection if the sale by the dealer to an intermediary broker rendered s.56 of no assistance."
This suggests to me that in my own case, a judge would consider the intent of S75 and how the Supplier's or Creditor's actions are hindering that purpose.

seguna

Agricolae wrote: »

The kind of fraud you and the OP are referring to is probably fraudulent misrepresentation. That is to say that the course provider made false statements of fact to the OP with the intent to deceive him and cause him to rely on said statements when deciding whether or not to go ahead and buy a place on the course.

Absolutely correct. If I were to sue the Supplier as a last resort, this is what I'd be pleading.

Agricolae

Exactly what details of your credit card did you give to the supplier?

I'm guessing it would be the same details they would have needed to process your card over the phone. I don't see any difference in the present situation and a mail order scenario where the customer gives his card details on the phone, and the supplier puts those into its merchant processing system to make the payment.

The thing is, by handing over your credit card details you are effectively giving the supplier the choice of how to process the payment, unless there is some contractual agreement between you that the payment will be processed in a certain way.

I don't think there is any dispute that the payment actually reached the right people, or the supplier would be chasing you for the money. PayPal appears to be the payment processor this supplier uses for credit card payments. It is unfortunate that this kind of transaction currently appears to break the debtor-creditor-supplier chain.

The comments made by the judges on section 56 don't sound particularly relevant. Having not read the ruling, I do not know for sure, but it sounds like they are talking about situations where there is some kind of broker involved.

mo786uk

seguna wrote: »

Thanks for your input. This is the nub of it I think.

However the difficulty I'm faced with is that this is NOT a PayPal transaction in the normal sense in that I did not link my credit card to PayPal and then use PayPal to make payment, as one might on Ebay or Amazon etc. I paid the Supplier with my CC (or so I thought) and it was the Supplier who then processed via PayPal (as it appears).

To me that ceratinly does not qualify as a regular PayPal transaction. I'm writing to PayPal now to ask for their opinion on how it might have happened from their point of view. I suspect they won't be able to say much as I had no direct dealing with them on this whatsoever.

I think we all understand it was not a traditional paypal transaction and that PayPal are just acting as a middleman to accept the funds

bottom line is that if your CC is arguing the toss you will need to go to court

Computersaysno

Paypal and its relevance to S75 is [imo] one of the major issues that we as consumers face going forward.

S75 has been invaluable in protecting consumers from rip-off merchants and indeed from genuine company collapses [World of Leather, anyone].

This protection is currently being massively undermined by [imo] the turning of a blind eye by the FOS to Paypal's refusal to engage with s75.

It's a scammers charter.....

Paypal charges way more commission to merchants yet offers no protection for consumers.

Paypal is based outside the EU [Luxembourg iirc], yet is in effect allowed to operate as a payment processing company and bank within the EU.....that needs to be challenged, and resolved.

Paypal acts like a law unto itself and can freeze money in your accounts with no reason given, and no chance of dialogue leading anywhere other than endless auto-generated emails.

If I could do without them, I would...but I can't.

My advice to the op is take the merchant to the small claims [assuming they have assets that you could get your hands on]; I would also name the cc and indeed issue papers against paypal as well [they do have a UK address].....one of them will probably pay up to avoid the costs of going to court.

Computersaysno

From Which website.....

Payments through Paypal and similar services

There are some transactions where the company that deals with your credit card payment is not the same as the one that provides the goods or service - such as Paypal.

If you use your credit card to pay for something through PayPal and the funds go direct to the seller, then as long as the company you're buying from has a 'Commercial Entity Agreement' with Paypal you may still be able to claim under Section 75 for any misrepresentation or breach of contract.

PayPal offers its own buyer protection scheme, called PayPal Buyer Protection, so it's worth checking if you'd be covered by that if you have a problem with your purchase.