Credit cards that allow Section 75 claims against PayPal?

[Deleted User]

I just cancelled my Halifax Mastercard because they are refusing to help with an issue I had on eBay under Section 75, due to the payment being to PayPal rather than the seller directly. I'm disputing it with the Ombudsman but does anyone know of a card provider that allows such claims without hassle?

I understand the loophole they are using to try and get out of responsibility, but I remember a few years ago some issuers said they would honour Section 75 for eBay purchases. Is that still true?

grumbler

S75 means just the CC company is jointly liable (in some cases) with the supplier, so it cannot be against Paypal.

I think chargeback is much more realistic scenario in such cases.

>> Rattan Furniture

System

• Did you use PayPal only as a payment facility?
• Have you tried to get Halifax to chargeback or disputed the transaction with PayPal?

DELETED USER wrote:

I just cancelled my Halifax Mastercard because they are refusing to help with an issue I had on eBay under Section 75, due to the payment being to PayPal rather than the seller directly. I'm disputing it with the Ombudsman but does anyone know of a card provider that allows such claims without hassle?

I understand the loophole they are using to try and get out of responsibility, but I remember a few years ago some issuers said they would honour Section 75 for eBay purchases. Is that still true?

[Deleted User]

I asked Halifax about a chargeback but they have a 6 month time limit. Long story short I discovered that the item was fake just outside the time limit, but if they honoured Section 75 that would make Halifax jointly responsible for it.

PayPal was the only payment facility and they are saying that because the transaction was with PayPal for a service they are not responsible.

eskbanker

DELETED USER wrote:

I asked Halifax about a chargeback but they have a 6 month time limit. Long story short I discovered that the item was fake just outside the time limit, but if they honoured Section 75 that would make Halifax jointly responsible for it.

PayPal was the only payment facility and they are saying that because the transaction was with PayPal for a service they are not responsible.

Probably worth familiarising yourself with the distinction between Section 75 and chargeback processes (see links below for the relevant MSE articles), but yes, section 75 doesn't apply when paying through intermediaries such as PayPal and chargeback is time-barred after 120 days. These are the standard rules for these schemes rather than being associated specifically with Halifax, so not sure there's anywhere else to go on this....

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/visa-mastercard-chargeback

lisyloo

Have you raised it with paypal? - Ah time barred.

I don't think you'll find a card that's liable TBH.

I guess the lesson here is that if it's important that it's genuine then get it checked out sooner.

InsideInsurance

DELETED USER wrote:

I just cancelled my Halifax Mastercard because they are refusing to help with an issue I had on eBay under Section 75, due to the payment being to PayPal rather than the seller directly. I'm disputing it with the Ombudsman but does anyone know of a card provider that allows such claims without hassle?

I understand the loophole they are using to try and get out of responsibility, but I remember a few years ago some issuers said they would honour Section 75 for eBay purchases. Is that still true?

You are missing where the problem is. All credit cards allow claims against PayPal under S75, they have no choice as its a piece of law that applies to all credit agreements that fall under the CCA.

The "problem" is that you paid PayPal £200 to give the vendor £200 and they did this. If for some reason PayPal failed to pay the vendor then you'd have a S75 claim against them.

Your issue is not with PayPal though, its with the Vendor, but you technically did not pay the vendor directly and thus have no cover under S75

There are some card issuers that go beyond the requirements of S75 however they often have a fairly limited timescale (eg some aspects of AmEx's promises go beyond but have 90 day limits)

lisyloo

So the bottom line is that PayPal "protection" is worthless

No it isn't.
Paypal protection is very good and usually favours buyers (sellers moan about it).
Your problem was you left it too long - so why blame paypal for that.
If it was importatnt to you that the item was not fake then why didn't you get it checked out within the timescales?

bengal-stripe

DELETED USER wrote:

........but they have a 6 month time limit. Long story short I discovered that the item was fake just outside the time limit.......

If it took you half a year to discover a certain item is a fake, it must have been a pretty good fake.

lisyloo

If it took you half a year to discover a certain item is a fake, it must have been a pretty good fake.

Well precisely.
If the item only holds intinsic value to the owner e.g. Versace tie, then if it's that good a fake it should make no difference.
If it has real value and perhaps high value e.g. Rolex watch, then it should have been checked out officially much sooner.

bris

Paypal breaks the consmer to credit card chain because the credit card is only liable when it pays the seller directly.

Paypal is instead classed as a third party in the chain so the credit card pay paypal and paypal pay the seller, so because paypal has not broken the contract to the consumer the CC is not liable.

Paypal set their own rules on disputes but as they are just a payment service and not a source of credit then S75 rules dont apply to them.