Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

I don't mind explaining this to you since you are not here with "17 years" of dispute experience :cool:

Section 75 is an 'old' section it is not really useful for modern day and age to handle disputes especially online card fraud. Everyone acknowledges it, including card companies and credit networks. However, act is an act and it will be held till something comes new.

Since S75 is strictly between the consumer and issuer, that is the reason why credit networks (visa, mastercard, amex etc) strictly does not enforce even if the charge back less of £100 flows through their network between issuing banks. They provision it separately as a disputed transaction

Originally, i.e days before online and internet transactions, section 75 was typically used when a retailer goes bust. For e.g you placed an order for a car that cost 20K, paid advance of 5K and the retailer goes bankrupt. Here the car manufacture simply won't fulfil the order. In such cases, credit card company will have to compensate on your loss.

Thank you for you explanation.

I hope you'll forgive me for being a bit sceptical, but you see, I have never heard that explanation before.

In fact, the only documentation I can find still insists that £100 is the minimum purchase price.

Oh well, I suppose the best thing to do is to make sure any purchases I make are actually what I want to make, that way I won't need to test out your theory.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

hpuse wrote: »

Section 75 is an 'old' section it is not really useful for modern day and age to handle disputes especially online card fraud.

But, alas, it is not fraud. It is payment for a service. To get that service, the user has to input their card details and numbers. The bank authorises the payment and the service begins. If they were fraudulant, the merchant banks would not allow them to operate.

Try another one!

missprice

hpuse wrote: »

I don't mind explaining this to you since you are not here with "17 years" of dispute experience :cool:

Section 75 is an 'old' section it is not really useful for modern day and age to handle disputes especially online card fraud. Everyone acknowledges it, including card companies and credit networks. However, act is an act and it will be held till something comes new.

The act itself was made in 1974. This does not mean that section 75 was also made in 1974.

These acts are a moveable feast. Laws are added and taken out quite often.
So just because its a 1974 act does not mean every bit of legislation is too.
Also even then little bits can be altered, say section 75 used to be £30, and has since been upped over time to £100

Oh and old law does not make it wrong law

Here is an example of new stuff being added

Additionally, Sections 140A and 140B (recently added by the Consumer Credit Act 2006)

From here. http://www.timeshare.org.uk/cca74.html

OK its for timeshares but its quoting newly added sections.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

hpuse wrote: »

Originally, i.e days before online and internet transactions, section 75 was typically used when a retailer goes bust. For e.g you placed an order for a car that cost 20K, paid advance of 5K and the retailer goes bankrupt. Here the car manufacture simply won't fulfil the order. In such cases, credit card company will have to compensate on your loss.

Again wrong in a way. It was used as a double indemity guarantee, should, say you bought a new kitchen and after fitting etc, the company went bust, allowed the buyer some redress against the card issuer, as a last resort, to get a remedy.

But, alas, not applicable where a service costs less than £100 and starts immediately, where no fraud has taken place.

The only one round this parish who is confused by that is OP.

As has been pointed out quite early in this thread, these companies do offer a refund, and again, quite within the law, charge an administration fee for doing so.

George_Michael

hpuse wrote: »

Section 75 is an 'old' section it is not really useful for modern day and age to handle disputes especially online card fraud. Everyone acknowledges it, including card companies and credit networks. However, act is an act and it will be held till something comes new

Old?
The consumer credit act was written in 1974 and section 75 has been amended since then (the last time was in 1983), so it's not that old.
Where do you get the misguided idea that it's not "really useful for modern day"? because the card issuers themselves don't agree with you, nor do Trading Standards, the financial ombudsman or the OFT.

http://help.barclaycard.co.uk/brochure/spending_transactions/section-75-claim
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm
http://www.tescobank.com/creditcards/elh/know-your-rights.html
http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/equal-liability#.UuFQiJvFLc4

Try as I might, I can't see any credit provider or official body stating that they consider S75 a thing of the past and useless in todays online age.

shaun_from_Africa

Section 75 is an 'old' section it is not really useful for modern day and age to handle disputes especially online card fraud

There are many pieces of oldish legislation that are as effective today as the day that they were introduced.
This is because legislative acts are not simply implemented then forgotten about. Many of them are updated and amended as and when required.

meer53

The above is NOT valid for all cards, ONLY CREDIT CARDS as long as the issuing member organisation subscribes to the UK card associations code of conduct.

Hpuse, corrected this for you.

I'd need the rest of my days to correct the rest of your posts so i won't bother.

meer53

"Originally, i.e days before online and internet transactions, section 75 was typically used when a retailer goes bust. For e.g you placed an order for a car that cost 20K, paid advance of 5K and the retailer goes bankrupt. Here the car manufacture simply won't fulfil the order. In such cases, credit card company will have to compensate on your loss."

This is also wrong. The liability for the refund is Joint, between the card issuer and the retailer.

How many more pieces of incorrect information are you going to post ? You've made yourself look an absolute idiot. Anyone reading your posts now will just ignore any advice you give. Well done.

hpuse

George_Michael wrote: »

Old?
The consumer credit act was written in 1974 and section 75 has been amended since then (the last time was in 1983), so it's not that old.
Where do you get the misguided idea that it's not "really useful for modern day"?.

I see - so when do you think the first Card Not Present transaction ran over the internet? in 1983 ?

---

To all of you "defending" yourself
Once for I say, please don't try and explain what you "think" you know quoting a 'sample example' for the sake of explaining.

If you read the history of this thread the initial posts from most of you said, no use contacting the bank, they won't do anything. Now, we are discussing Consumer Credit Act of 1974 that got amended in 83 s ...Grossly immature folks here ...How long do you think you keep defending and offending for the sake of proving me wrong???

Again, for the sake of it may you all now know.

'Credits', as termed in these acts are now provided via networks that operate at international level spanning atleast 120 geographies and legislations. To bring an amendment to these acts keeping every other regional legislations in sync is virtually impossible. Law makers know it is better to leave them untouched.

That is the MAIN reason why banks themselves have a superior authority in decision making on disputed and fraudulent transactions. And YES, it includes BOTH credit and debit cards. They spend million in in countering fraud while you guys are scratching your head reading old literature compiled 20+ years ago to see where consumers and these business stand from a 'legal' angle....

Banks know that the only way a retailer survives is when customers spend their money without problems.

Scroll back the previous anecdotal posts here and you will come to know that most of you said delete the wrong advise post#1 "don't contact the bank" it is pointless and useless, they wont do anything ..delete the post ?? Now where do we stand ?

TIP for the day: If you keep quiet then you will add more value in these thread :rotfl: Which also means less intimidation from me!!

hpuse

George_Michael wrote: »

Old?
The consumer credit act was written in 1974 and section 75 has been amended since then (the last time was in 1983), so it's not that old.
Where do you get the misguided idea that it's not "really useful for modern day"?.

I see - so when do you think the first Card Not Present transaction ran over the internet? in 1983 ?

---

To all of you "defending" yourself
Once for I say, please don't try and explain what you "think" you know quoting a 'sample example' for the sake of explaining.

If you read the history of this thread the initial posts from most of you said, no use contacting the bank, they won't do anything. Now, we are discussing Consumer Credit Act of 1974 that got amended in 83 s ...Grossly immature folks here ...How long do you think you keep defending and offending for the sake of proving me wrong???

Again, for the sake of it may you all now know.

'Credits', as termed in these acts are now provided via networks that operate at international level spanning atleast 120 geographies and legislations. To bring an amendment to these acts keeping every other regional legislations in sync is virtually impossible. Law makers know it is better to leave them untouched.

That is the MAIN reason why banks themselves have a superior authority in decision making on disputed and fraudulent transactions and YES, it includes BOTH credit and debit cards. They spend million in in countering fraud while you guys scratch your head reading old literature compile 20+ years ago to see where consumers and these business stand....

Banks know that the only way a retailer survives is when customers spend their money without problems.

Scroll back the previous anecdotal posts here and you will come to know that most of you said delete the wrong advise post#1 "don't contact the bank" it is pointless and useless, they wont do anything ..delete the post ?? Now where do we stand ?

TIP for the day: If you keep quiet then you will add more value in these thread :rotfl: Which also means less intimidation from me!!