Rattan Furniture

Karloshadley

Help!

I purchased a Rattan Garden Furniture Set through Ebay back in June 2011. I've gone to cover it up ready for winter and to my horror the whole framework underneath the Rattan is totally rusted through. I have copies of the original advert which states that the framework is aluminium and that the the furniture is weather proof. I have contacted the seller (who is still selling) who has openly admitted that he will not refund or replace. I have spoken to Paypal who said they would contact the seller (Far East Trading Ltd, Bristol).

The set cost £495.00 and I'm very disappointed. Need help to get my money back. Will my credit card supplier act on my behalf?

Paid by Master Card through Paypal

Your help and support is appreciated.

Ps

I have copies of the Paypal Transaction, images of the faulty goods and email sent to the seller.

Regards,

Karl

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

Welcome to MSE :wave:

Karloshadley wrote: »

Paid by Master Card through Paypal

Unfortunately there's your problem. Your CC provider will not be interested as there's no direct link.

techspec

Fruit_and_Nut_Case wrote: »

Welcome to MSE :wave:

Unfortunately there's your problem. Your CC provider will not be interested as there's no direct link.

They wouldn't anway - it was bought in 2011 - its now nearly 2014.

bigadaj

You could contact trading standards if it is a uk firm, obviously out of guarantee but the goods have to be of serviceable quality so worth pursuing in my opinion.

grumbler

techspec wrote: »

...it was bought in 2011 - its now nearly 2014.

And? AFAIK, there is no any time limit.
Theoretically the OP still can sue the supplier, but as Paypal was involved, they cannot hold the CC company jointly liable.

techspec

grumbler wrote: »

And? AFAIK, there is no any time limit.
Theoretically the OP still can sue the supplier, but as Paypal was involved, they cannot hold the CC company jointly liable.

AND - i was referring to the CREDIT CARD in response to the specif post on the credit card.

I never said the couldn't sue or report to TS.

Do try and keep up - it aint rocket science.

Why do some people get their kicks cutting short posts and mis-quoting other members?

YorkshireBoy

techspec wrote: »

Why do some people get their kicks cutting short posts and mis-quoting other members?

To be fair, the only thing grumbler 'cut' was "They wouldn't anway".

Although I'm familiar with 'Chargeback', I don't know if that needs a D-C-S relationship like section 75 does. Do you?

Because with 'Chargeback' you have 120 days from becoming aware of a problem to lodge a claim.

If there isn't a need for the D-C-S relationship, ie they cover the use of an agent, then your "They wouldn't anway" statement is wrong isn't it?

YorkshireBoy

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Although I'm familiar with 'Chargeback', I don't know if that needs a D-C-S relationship like section 75 does.

I do now...it doesn't!

As a seller, PayPal warn you that chargebacks are possible on your PayPal account, with one of the reasons being "the item does not match its description"...

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

And the (MasterCard/Visa) 120 day clock starts ticking from the moment the purchaser becomes aware of this, ie in the OP's case, it starts rusting when it shouldn't.

Yes I know chargeback is not enshrined in law like section 75 is, but it presents an avenue to follow.

grumbler

techspec wrote: »

AND - i was referring to the CREDIT CARD in response to the specif post on the credit card.

So was I.

I never said the couldn't sue or report to TS.

I never said anything about reporting to TS. Suing is the ultimate action that you sometimes need to undertake when claiming under S75.

Why do some people get their kicks cutting short posts

Possibly for the same reason as some people make short vague posts. You are welcome to post a longer version to make your point about 2011-2014 more clear.

and mis-quoting other members?

I might be misinterpreted your post, but not misquoted it. My interpretation was:

(Regardless of D-C-S relationship) They wouldn't (be interested in S75 claim) anway - (because) it was bought in 2011 - its now nearly 2014.

In fact the D-C-S relationship is the deciding factor here while 2011-2014 is absolutely irrelevant for S75 claim.

pvt

If you still have the advert and it claims the items were made of aluminium and weatherproof, then go for a small claims using MCOL. You need to write to them first with a "letter before action" (LBA), advising that if they don't refund you'll be making a claim in court.

Sounds like clear misrepresentation, should be easy to win and they would be unlikely to be able to defend it if their "weatherproof aluminium" has rusted through.

As others have said, S75 won't fly, but the company looks solid and still filing accounts to Companies House, so it's worth a punt going after them directly.

dalesrider

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

And the (MasterCard/Visa) 120 day clock starts ticking from the moment the purchaser becomes aware of this, ie in the OP's case, it starts rusting when it shouldn't.

Yes I know chargeback is not enshrined in law like section 75 is, but it presents an avenue to follow.

No it does not....

120 days starts from the date of debit. Or the date the product/service was provided.
With a maximum of 540 from date of debit.

As well as the link to the CC was a payment to PP who have not provided the goods. Only moved the money.
So PP can reject any (not that there is one in this case) on the basis that they have done as contracted and moved the money.