Credit cards that allow Section 75 claims against PayPal?

tinkerbell28

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

Well they wouldn't necessarily know unfortunately. It's a case of read the t&c's.

The reason is, because places like sagepay and streamline, etc. Are merchant processors. So for example on your statement you will have the name of the company, they will have your payment straight into their merchant account.

So chain of events ....

Customer pays merchant directly with card >>>>> Payment is authorised by merchant processer and sent straight onto merchant bank account.

Clear chain.

People pay by paypal. You have paypal XYZ on your statement, they don't get the funds directly into a merchant account.

Customer pays by card, or part funds with card. >>>>>>> Paypal pass funds to sellers paypal account >>>>>>> seller transfers to merchant bank account.

It's that bolded step which breaks the trinity of buyer, credit card company and supplier.

S75 is old legislation and doesn't fit paypal really.

The which article argues, yet untested. That in theory, if a COMPANY (not private seller) has funds go directly to them (that's key) and a commercial entity agreement. They may be able to claim section s75.

So basically a retailer who uses paypal as a merchant processor. Where a direct link from funds processed >>> merchant account exists. Which isn't ebay.

But that's all speculation from which and yet untested. Definitely wouldn't apply here.

As for small claims, I wouldn't be taking Halifax to court unless you want to lose more money. They aren't responsible.

If you should be taking anyone to court, it's the seller, against them you would have a case.

[Deleted User]

I will try the FOS, and if that fails Small Claims Court. I will keep this thread updated.

lisyloo

Have you checked your household insurance to see if you have any legal cover?

They won't take on any cases that think are likely to lose, so their opinion might give you some clue as to whether it's worth spending your own money.

shoi

Just to add to the mix paypal today sent me some blurb about new paypal credit where you can pay them off in stages. Might this put them into the line of fire?

PeacefulWaters

DELETED USER wrote:

I will try the FOS, and if that fails Small Claims Court. I will keep this thread updated.

Thanks for making the effort!

NoviceAngel

Just reading through this thread, an interesting debate...

One thing that did hit me was if the Claimant did take this to Court, any Judgment would NOT be binding on other Judges or Courts...

It would need to be appealed by the losing party, then appealed another time to the high court and possibly to the Supreme Court. Then it would be binding, I normally post and give advice on EC261/2004.

It was only after the Dawson and Huzar case went as high as the SC that airlines started to pay claims..

Cheers,

NoviceAngel