Chargeback works

gobuddy

For the family summer holidays I booked an apartment from MySuites in New York. When we arrived the apartment never materialised and we were offered an alternative which wasn't what we wanted. We told MySuites that this was unacceptable, asked for a refund and booked a last minute hotel instead.
As MySuites didn't reply to my emails I wrote to the Post Office with stacks of backing information as it was paid for on a Post Office credit card.
The card company wrote back asking for one bit of clarification and then refunded the whole amount that MySuites had taken. I'm so happy.

This was through chargeback not Section 75. I'm still not sure what the difference is.

But the moral is that it is worth pursuing the card company if you have problems with a supplier.

jonesMUFCforever

If the hotel cost you more, then I hope you claimed for the consequential losses as well.

chattychappy

gobuddy wrote: »

This was through charge back not Section 75. I'm still not sure what the difference is.

In summary: 1) chargeback is a system operated by the CC networks whereby a transaction can be reversed in certain circumstances (goods not received, duplicate transaction etc). You cannot demand that a CC operates it on your behalf as of right, but the FOS has said that given the availability of the scheme, they would regard it as unfair if a CC didn't help a cardholder in appropriate circumstances. As the CC recovers the monies through the network, they are not left out of pocket (except the hassle factor). 2) S75 is a legal right granted to UK consumer credit users whereby the lender is made jointly and severally liable for a breach of contract or misrepresentation, again if certain conditions are met. Put bluntly, it gives you a right to sue the CC instead of/as well as the merchant. If you succeed, the CC has to pay out, regardless of whether they can recover via the network.

So the circumstances in which both can be used overlap. And there are circumstances when neither would apply or only one would apply. S75 gives you rights and is onerous on the CC - but a CC is less likely to resist a claim if they can recover via chargeback. With chargeback you can only recover what you paid. With S75, you can recover "damages" - possibly more than what you originally paid.

[Deleted User]

DaisyJaime wrote: »

Your experience is helpful to every postyer when she or he buy something

Well done. That was a very realistic looking post.

magpiecottage

Very helpful, Chattychappy.

I tend to ask a bank to use chargeback where it is available and just goods that are faulty or have not arrived because the bank is then not out of pocket for something that is clearly not its fault.

On the other hand, if something costs over £100 then having the ability to rely on Section 75 is comforting.

Note that it is the total cost, NOT the amount on credit that gives rise to the liability. You could, in theory, put a penny on the credit card and pay the rest in cash. If that happened, chargeback would only get you the penny back.

chattychappy

magpiecottage wrote: »

You could, in theory, put a penny on the credit card and pay the rest in cash. If that happened, chargeback would only get you the penny back.

Good point - as people are sometimes advised here just to put 1p onto the CC to get S75 protection. Whilst you get S75 (subject to the usual rules), chargeback wouldn't help much!