section 75

eskbanker

Unfortunately it sounds like there isn't much basis on which to challenge the card company's stance then, if their statement says you effectively paid a third party (i.e. that's who they settled with) and you can't prove otherwise. However, even if you'd paid the dealer directly, you still may have had issues making the claim stick, since second hand car problems seem to crop up on here fairly regularly and rarely seem to be completely black and white in terms of being able to make an uncontested claim under section 75, so it looks like you have little choice other than to pursue the dealer directly. How many times have you taken the car back for repairs, etc? Is the trader hostile face to face? Assistance from Citizens Advice or Trading Standards perhaps?

grumbler

eskbanker wrote: »

Unfortunately it sounds like there isn't much basis on which to challenge the card company's stance then, if their statement says you effectively paid a third party (i.e. that's who they settled with) and you can't prove otherwise.

This is arguable. When a customer authorises a payment, he authorises both the amount and the recipient. I think, if the recipient wasn't the same as stated on the receipt, a chargeback can be a possibility as for unauthorised payment.

System

In that case the chargeback would only be for the amount spent on the card I.E. the deposit

eskbanker

grumbler wrote: »

This is arguable. When a customer authorises a payment, he authorises both the amount and the recipient. I think, if the recipient wasn't the same as stated on the receipt, a chargeback can be a possibility as for unauthorised payment.

I'm differentiating here between a receipt in the form of a handwritten compliments slip (clearly issued by the trader) and a formal card payment receipt showing merchant id, authorisation info, etc. If OP only has the former and not the latter then it's harder to challenge the card company's assertion that the payment was actually made to the third party - potentially arguable as you say though, but without much to go on!

Going back to earlier posts, the card company is equally liable as the trader but in the context of a car dispute (i.e. unlike some more clear-cut situations) they will inevitably expect the customer to make reasonable efforts to resolve with the supplier before claiming a refund, so OP should probably clarify more about what's happened thus far on that front.

grumbler

eskbanker wrote: »

I'm differentiating here between a receipt in the form of a handwritten compliments slip (clearly issued by the trader) and a formal card payment receipt showing merchant id, authorisation info, etc. If OP only has the former and not the latter then it's harder to challenge the card company's assertion that the payment was actually made to the third party - potentially arguable as you say though, but without much to go on!

When you pay in a shop you know nothing about "merchant id, authorisation info, etc." and aren't supposed to know all these technicalities. If the OP was conned into paying to some other company then clearly it wasn't the payment that the OP knowingly authorised, and the receipt he has proves this.

dazza.mk

grumbler wrote: »

When you pay in a shop you know nothing about "merchant id, authorisation info, etc." and aren't supposed to know all these technicalities. If the OP was conned into paying to some other company then clearly it wasn't the payment that the OP knowingly authorised, and the receipt he has proves this.

But was the OP conned? Take for the example the below, I doubt everyone who makes a card payment by it will understand that Paypal is an intermediary and therefore breaks the Section 75 chain? .... But have they been conned?

https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/credit-card-reader

grumbler

In your example 'PayPal' is written all over the face.

That said, I agree that from customer's point of view there is no any difference between PayPal and Visa/Mastercard/Amex that are essentially just payment processing systems.

S75, when applied to CC transactions is just one of many stupid UK laws that make no sense and are 'abused' by both parties by using technicalities - by customers when they refer to s75 when claiming, and by companies when they reject claims. Essentially it makes no difference if the payment goes via Paypal, and it's beyond me why our toothless regulators and lawmakers were unable to sort this out yet.

eskbanker

grumbler wrote: »

When you pay in a shop you know nothing about "merchant id, authorisation info, etc." and aren't supposed to know all these technicalities.

Agreed, but you're supposed to get a proper card receipt with those details on it if you pay by card! If OP had insisted on this at the time it may have helped rather than it being an unwelcome surprise further down the line (isn't hindsight wonderful!).

grumbler wrote: »

If the OP was conned into paying to some other company then clearly it wasn't the payment that the OP knowingly authorised, and the receipt he has proves this.

We don't really know anything about the nature of the third party or the basis on which the payment was routed via them, but there was a trend a few years ago for merchants to exploit some sort of tax loophole by having their card payments routed through a separate entity, and they had to comply with various notifications at point of sale. I agree that it's clear to those of us on here that OP didn't realise the payment was going elsewhere but, in the context of the card company not playing ball, it's questionable as to whether they'll consider that an unauthorised transaction, worth a try though!

bigadaj

Sounds like the OP might be best advised to contact trading standards as another alternative.

widescale

Trading standards are involved,was advised to make claim on section 75 to start with,it all takes time,all comments taken with thanks to all.