Credit cards that allow Section 75 claims against PayPal?

tinkerbell28

DELETED USER wrote:

Yes, it does apply to PayPal. At least that is what Which?'s legal advice is saying.

They tried to break it because they were getting a massive number of chargebacks from people who were unhappy with their resolution service. I have a few of them myself when I was selling stuff years ago. There is basically nothing you could do, the bank just reversed it and PayPal tried to claw the money back from you.

No it doesn't.

The banks however used to be more lenient. They aren't now and started following S75 to the letter. As paypal started fighting back, why shouldn't they?

The problem is, in a S75 claim the chain is broken. You are claiming money back from ebay/paypal who are just the payment gateway. You SHOULD be claiming money back from the seller.

They are the ones who provide the goods, end up with the money and they are the ones who your consumer rights are with. So the right to a S75 claim is broken.

It's like turning up at a carboot in a school or something and demand the school give you the £50 back you paid for something which is fake, from a seller long gone. As they hosted it.

The FOS don't agree with your stance, it even says so on their site, so you'll just get yourself all worked up for nothing.

lisyloo

At least that is what Which?'s legal advice is saying.

Guess what.
Just because Which say so (to sell magazines) doesn't make it true.

I could tell you Father Christmas exists but that doesn't make it true.

Think about it - If Which were correct then one or two motivated individuals like yourself would already have tested this.
I suspect like you they have tried via the ombudsman route and failed.

I agree with Tinkerbell - it'll be a waste of your time and emotion.
You made a mistake and are now trying to blame another party.

MEM62

DELETED USER wrote:

Well, I'll try the ombudsman anyway. At least it costs Halifax money if I do so.


So because you are unhappy that Halifax legitimately has no liability in this instance you pursue a case with the Ombudsman just to derive some satisfaction in lumbering them with the cost. Nice! Have you pursued the vendor in a similar fashion or are you just out to pick on any easy target because you got lumbered with a fake product?

I remember when the PayPal issue first came up and some issuers said they would still cover such purchases. It seems like they have now all decided not to. So the bottom line is that PayPal "protection" is worthless and anything you buy on eBay or any other website that accepts it isn't covered by the usual rules. The moral of the story is don't use PayPal.


PayPal protection is not worthless. But neither is it limitless. You brought your claim outside the limits stated in their terms and conditions. (As was also the case for your credit card provider)

............

eddddy

lisyloo wrote: »

Guess what.
Just because Which say so (to sell magazines) doesn't make it true.

I could tell you Father Christmas exists but that doesn't make it true.

Think about it - If Which were correct then one or two motivated individuals like yourself would already have tested this.
I suspect like you they have tried via the ombudsman route and failed.

I agree with Tinkerbell - it'll be a waste of your time and emotion.
You made a mistake and are now trying to blame another party.

Hi lisyloo

I think you're missing the point of what Which? are saying.

People are trying the Ombudsman route, and Which? are suggesting that the Ombudsman is making the wrong decision in law in these cases - based on the opinion of their legal counsel.

(For my part, I'm not legal counsel and I haven't studied the relevant legislation, so I can't comment on that.)

But I think it's very understandable why nobody has tested this in court.

- Paypal is typically used for low value transactions - often not more than say £200.

- Paypal has it's own resolution scheme (as discussed)

- If the Paypal resolution scheme and Ombudsman decide against you, most people give up - they don't go to court. Especially as the transaction amount is typically small.

- If you do go to court for such a small amount, perhaps the banks are simply paying "goodwill gestures" without admitting liability.


And I think it's unlikely to be tested in court unless somebody suffers a major financial loss. But this is unlikely, as Paypal is only used for small transactions.

(I guess a possible scenario would be if somebody paid a £250 deposit with paypal for a £25k car, and got ripped off. They would then have a big incentive to test s75 and paypal in court.)

lisyloo

I get your point that there is an untested theory going round.
That doesn't mean that they are right.
It doesn't mena that they are wrong either but there is certainly insufficient evidence at the moment that no-one can claim that paypal are breaking the law (except in the lone opinion of one untested legal counsel).

For the amount involved it wouldn't make sense for mojo to pursue this is court at his/her own cost, although if he/she has legal insurance then perhaps mojo could try to persuade them to take on the case?
If so please do update us.

michaels

At what point is the chain broken? There are lots of services that allow a seller to accept credit card payents, for example all the new phone based services. As a buyer how are you supposed to guess whether the payment mechanism 'breaks' section 75 or not?

meer53

The chain is broken when there are 3 parties involved. Not just the seller and the card issuer. If you pay a seller by credit card, fine. If you pay an intermediary to pass on the money to the seller, the chain is broken.

tinkerbell28

michaels wrote: »

At what point is the chain broken? There are lots of services that allow a seller to accept credit card payents, for example all the new phone based services. As a buyer how are you supposed to guess whether the payment mechanism 'breaks' section 75 or not?

That's why the FOS clearly state in some instances. As not all payment gateways break the chain

With paypal . They provide a service. They are the ones who take the payment. Then pay the seller. No issues there.

Not all payment gateways exclude the seller. So for example you issue a chargeback/s75 seller. It comes from the sellers merchant account.

With paypal most s75 claims are against them as their systems break the chain. As the payment gateway not the seller of the goods, then they've done nothing wrong, so a s75 will fail as they've provided their service.

Looking at the WHICH advice and if this is what op is reliant on, he's going to be disappointed. Which say Amazon marketplace orders aren't covered because it's an online payment service. Amazon market place is the same set up as ebay, it's their version of it.

Their advice on paypal is sketchy to say the least. If amazon market place orders aren't covered by s75 on their own admission, then surely paypal follows suit? I think what op is holding onto is the commercial entity agreement, MAY cover him.

There is nothing I can see on Which that says the law means s75 should apply to this situation .

What WHICH are referring to in that instance...the simplest way I can explain it. You know when you go to a retailers website? Some accept paypal? It's embedded in the website? In that situation you could argue, the buyer/supplier chain hasn't been broken and s75 should apply. As there is no third party and in that instance paypal is working as a merchant payment processor.

The problem here in ops case, is using ebay, like Amazon market place, which the magazine in question clearly say isn't covered for s75.....is that he's interrupted the supplier/buyer chain by using a 3rd party.

DELETED USER wrote:

Because they made sure that PayPal (which they own, if you didn't know) breaks Section 75, or at least tries to. They banned all other payment methods cheque and cash. With Amazon your Section 75 rights remain in force, no question.

No they don't, your beloved WHICH confirms this, marketplace transactions aren't eligible.

lisyloo

If you pay an intermediary to pass on the money to the seller, the chain is broken.

Ok, but the question is how would someone know that paypal was an "intermediary" as opposed to something like worldpay or sagepay.

If you are using paypal as a guest then you type in your credit card number so how would someone (without our knowledge) know that it was a different case and they were actually paying paypal and not the 3rd party.

System

Okay, you only really have the FOS or a Small Claim against Halifax.

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.