Section 75 - fails to support consumer

chattychappy

S75 is effectively an insurance policy we are all forced to buy when we use credit cards. It amounts to a subsidy from the prudent user to the !!!!less/fraudulent cardholder.

How many here remember 1974? It really was a different world. Consumer credit was typically about a bloke turning up at your door with a hoover (other vacuuming products were available), tipping dust onto your carpet and wowing some bored housewife into buying one on the never-never (just in time for a power cut). Usually there was a direct connection between the finance company and the seller. CCs were rare.

Now we have CC networks and global markets. CC companies pay little part in the sale except as a payment services provider.

Even if you are in favour of S75, it certainly has some arbitrary aspects. Eg payments via 3rd parties or payments on behalf of others (not always obvious) excluded, additional cardholder transactions excluded (it seems), <£100 excluded. Oh and exactly why should a CC have unlimited liability for a £10K transaction when you only stick a quid on the card?

But the law is the law. I doubt whether it will change - given the fashionable hatred of banks it would be a brave government that would repeal S75 and it would require amending primary legislation.

So the OP has come on here looking for advice. Whether or not certain posters (myself included) like the law or not, I think it's only fair to give the best advice possible given the situation and not criticise him/her for exercising rights.

If the OP was simply careless in signing up to something without understanding it and now feels cheated, there will be no claim anyway. But if there was a breach of contract or misrepresentation (that induced him/her into the contract) then there is a claim and S75 (subject to the usual provisos) makes the finance company equally liable. Then it just comes down to a decision based on the viability of the case according to the strength of evidence and the hassle/expense of litigation.

dalesrider

chattychappy wrote: »

So the OP has come on here looking for advice. Whether or not certain posters (myself included) like the law or not, I think it's only fair to give the best advice possible given the situation and not criticise him/her for exercising rights.

Point taken and I agree with you.

chattychappy wrote: »

If the OP was simply careless in signing up to something without understanding it and now feels cheated, there will be no claim anyway. But if there was a breach of contract or misrepresentation (that induced him/her into the contract) then there is a claim and S75 (subject to the usual provisos) makes the finance company equally liable. Then it just comes down to a decision based on the viability of the case according to the strength of evidence and the hassle/expense of litigation.

Well given they have been rejected then they only have one option.
Take it to court.

No advice given here is going to get the CC co to change their mind.

grumbler

chattychappy wrote: »

So the OP has come on here looking for advice. Whether or not certain posters (myself included) like the law or not, I think it's only fair to give the best advice possible given the situation and not criticise him/her for exercising rights.

You are missing the fact that the OP came here complaining about lack of support from the CC company, not just looking for advice.

It is naive to expect getting support from a victim that you are demanding money from and are likely to sue for this money.

chattychappy

grumbler wrote: »

You are missing the fact that the OP came here complaining about lack of support from the CC company, not just looking for advice.

Perhaps. But I'm not sure I understand this bit:

grumbler wrote: »

It is naive to expect getting support from a victim that you are demanding money from and are likely to sue for this money.

Are you saying that the CC here is the "victim"?

dalesrider

chattychappy wrote: »

Are you saying that the CC here is the "victim"?

They will be if the OP wins his case......

grumbler

chattychappy wrote: »

Are you saying that the CC here is the "victim"?

Yes, they are a victim of some stupid law.

chattychappy

dalesrider wrote: »

They will be if the OP wins his case......

grumbler wrote: »

Yes, they are a victim of some stupid law.

OK can't agree with this analysis. Like it or not, the law has been around since 1974. CC issuers know the legal basis on which credit card transactions take place. If an issuer authorises a transaction then they know they are jointly liable.

Nobody forces banks to issue credit cards.

To the extent they are a victim, they are not the victim of either the law or the cardholder. They are the victim of the merchant with whom they jointly contracted with. True they might not have much involvement in the purchase. But that's a risk they take.