Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

mo786uk

S75 has been around for near on 40 years - they can build those costs into their profits.

seguna

I'm pretty sure they build all their costs into their charging regimes which ultimately feeds into their profits.

I just wanted to make it clear the idea that S75 chargebacks don't hurt the Supplier and the cost is totally borne by the CCC, and ultimately other cardholders, is utter tosh.

The reality is that creditors will seek this money back from the liable party in the agreement chain and only where they can't e.g. a liquidated supplier will they bear it themselves.

seguna

seguna wrote: »

Peeps, two VERY interesting and helpful resources have turned up:

1. Some relevant Case Law

Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 268 (22 March 2006)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/268.html

It's instructive to note that the above action was brought by the OFT on behalf of consumers. It is therefore quite significant when looking at issues relating to Paypal and other similiar transactions and Section 75.

I found this closing comment, at 122, very helpful

6. Summary

For these reasons we have reached the conclusion that connected lender liability under section 75 of the Act attaches to all transactions entered into using credit cards issued under consumer credit agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, whether they take place within a three- or four-party structure and whether they are entered into in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. We therefore allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.

mo786uk

Essentially if your cc provider doesn't back down or feels the law is on their side then you will only have the option of court action.

I imagine the CC company is well aware of all these arguments and probably hopes most people will back down.

Agricolae

Having read the case from beginning to end, I fail to see how it was dealing with the issue of PayPal. It seems to me to be dealing with whether or not a transaction entered into abroad is covered under section 75.

I also wonder if in some cases PayPal is a 5th party as opposed to a 4th, thus:

Debtor - Issuer - (PayPal's) Acquirer - PayPal - Supplier (account with PayPal)

mo786uk

Agricolae wrote: »

Having read the case from beginning to end, I fail to see how it was dealing with the issue of PayPal. It seems to me to be dealing with whether or not a transaction entered into abroad is covered under section 75.

I also wonder if in some cases PayPal is a 5th party as opposed to a 4th, thus:

Debtor - Issuer - (PayPal's) Acquirer - PayPal - Supplier (account with PayPal)

It deals with the principles behind S75.

If S75 was that easy to get around everyone would be doing it.

Therefore it does have some relevance to this point.

seguna

Agricolae wrote: »

Having read the case from beginning to end, I fail to see how it was dealing with the issue of PayPal.

Please read the blog post as well.

http://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/emoney-and-s-75-am-i-covered/

As well as this other cited case Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Alfred Truman (a firm) [2005] All ER (D) 306 (Mar).

You'll see from the conclusions that the focus is on the principles of Consumer Credit and regulation, the will of Parliament and the protection of the consumer. It is less on multi-party structures used by issuers/creditors/suppliers/merchants etc which the Judges rightly state that consumers have no influence over and therefore should not be prejudiced by.

wealdroam

Seguna, I'm not quite sure why you are continuing to try and convince forum members that your interpretation of S75 is right.

The only thing that matters is what your credit card company thinks is right.

How are you getting on with convincing them?

And by the way, describing other poster's contributions as 'utter tosh' is probably not the best way to get agreement.
I can guarantee that telling your credit card company they are talking 'utter tosh' will not convert them.

seguna

wealdroam wrote: »

Seguna, I'm not quite sure why you are continuing to try and convince forum members that your interpretation of S75 is right.
I'm not. Some people agree with me and some don't. I had my position BEFORE I found the recent case law which thankfully is helping me. I felt this case law would be useful to others as it has far more authority than my mere opinion.

The only thing that matters is what your credit card company thinks is right.
Not necessarily. But we'll soon see how this plays out.

How are you getting on with convincing them?
Will update in due course. I only just got the above case law this bank holiday weekend!:)

And by the way, describing other poster's contributions as 'utter tosh' is probably not the best way to get agreement.
I can guarantee that telling your credit card company they are talking 'utter tosh' will not convert them.
I wasn't trying to get agreement. The post I was reflecting on was delivered with an air of superiority about something that affects multitudes of people and could influence their actions should they choose to follow it. I was simply clarifying what I'd find out since those errant comments were made.

But I humbly take your point, the use of 'utter tosh' is not exactly polite is it? But then have you gone through everyone else's post on this thread to comment on their grammatical choices?
Peace

seguna

Update:
Well well, having written to both PayPal and the CC. CC has come back with the usual "final refusal and go back to FOS" position.

PayPal have acknowledged but still not formally responded so will update once I have a response.