S75 - Sofa Problem & CCard - Please Help me!!

dw89

Hi All,


I really need some advice. I bought a Sofa/Stool from a company that sounds like SofaTwerps in May. Basically, to cut a long story short, we ordered one colour but another coloured sofa turned up. Not only that but the stool was damaged. Having heard stories before I refused the delivery, took photos etc to show colour and then was told it would be sorted out (yeah right!).


Six weeks later we still have no sofa (funnily enough the floor's not that comfortable when one of you is disabled and the other has a back problem) and the idiots at Sofatwerps actually have the audacity to say it was the right colour all along. So basically calling me, my wife and the two delivery drivers (who I also have on tape stating it was wrong colour) idiots and that we cannot tell difference between two colours when they're side by side in bright sunlight. They refuse to give any explanations on this miraculous change (just that we're stupid), refuse to give a refund and just expect me to accept this. Obviously I'm not so I complained to my CC.


Firstly they wasted two weeks trying to go along with their 'rules' and, I assume, the chargeback route. I had enough and told them it should be a section 75 under SoG. Another two weeks later the S75 team finally gets in contact and basically tries to put all onus on me, says a refund is not a guarantee and says I may need to take THEM to court (i.e. Sofatwerips). I just wrote back reiterating what's happened, repointed them to evidence and hope they'll sort it out.


Please tell me this is just bluster and a JOKE? How can we order one colour, another be delivered and I have to take them to court to get my money back? I thought this is what S75 was for? Or are the CC just trying to wiggle out of their responsibilities?


What can I do to make them get on with it? We desparately want to get another Sofa and I'm not prepared to just accept Sofawerps' word to make them feel all warm and fuzzy when I'm 99.99% sure they're just trying to pull a fast one!!


HELP ME! Please, any advice appreciated guys. Oh and I have perfect 20/20 vision btw.


Dave

Tixy

I had enough and told them it should be a section 75 under SoG.

Was that in writing or by phone?

I just wrote back reiterating what's happened, repointed them to evidence and hope they'll sort it out.

How recently did you send this letter?

dw89

Hi, Thanks so much for reply.


Both times in writing via email.


Thanks


Dave


PS Last reply from me was today (when they wrote to me for first time - S75 Team that is)

YorkshireBoy

Ask the card provider by letter to perform a chargeback under reason code V53 (Visa) or M53 (MasterCard). Do this via the formal complaint route, citing their reluctance to act when first requested, and the 6 weeks you've spent trying to resolve it with the store.


Wait for either their final response declining, or 8 weeks have elapsed (whichever comes first), and then either...


1. Refer to the FOS for adjudication, or
2. Sue them (the card provider and/or the store) in the small claims court under section 75/SOGA.


If you go the section 75 route, remember that consequential losses may also be claimed/recovered...so keep records.

InsideInsurance

S75 is under the Consumer Credit Act. It basically makes the credit provider and the merchant jointly liable for the contract

dw89 wrote: »

Please tell me this is just bluster and a JOKE? How can we order one colour, another be delivered and I have to take them to court to get my money back? I thought this is what S75 was for? Or are the CC just trying to wiggle out of their responsibilities?

It is questionable what S75 "is for". It comes from a time where credit was much rarer than it is today and arguably was as much to ensure only good and upstanding were given it because it creates that dual liability.

Obviously these days there are more credit cards than adults and you'd be hard pressed to find a store that doesnt accept cards.

Just because a bank is equally liable with the vendor doesnt mean the bank is any easier a target to get your money back from than the vendor. Its real "benefit" is the fact that if the vendor goes bust you still have a party you can pursue!

The other advantage is that if you disagree with their judgement then you can take the matter to the FOS rather than taking the matter to the courts however with the speed of the FOS it can be better to go to court if you want a speedy resolution.

If you did go to court it would be fully your choice if you issue proceedings against the vendor or the credit provider. Its really a calculated choice of which you think is most likely to settle on receipt of the LBA or claim form rather than defending in court.

dw89

YorkshireBoy/InsideInsurance,


Thanks both for your advice. I must say I'd never heard of those reason codes so thankyou. Also, what does LBA mean?


To be honest I want the least aggro possible. The whole thing's been a complete nightmare. All we wanted was the damn sofa but now, after what they've done and said, I don't trust them one single bit. What's more annoying is to get something similar is going to cost a LOT more just because no one else seems to do the same style/colour (not that they gave us the colour!)...I guess that's life sometimes.


Either way I just want my money so we can actually have something to sit on. To think that, by the time we do get one, we'll have been without one for five months.


Thanks again and any more advice more than welcome. I had a reply from them (Visa) saying that they were 'looking into it' and 'will get back to me'; so I guess its watch this space and then, if nothing happens, do the formal letter and then FOS/Court. Why can't people just admit their mistakes anymore. Noone ever does. Sad world.


KR, Dave

derps

dw89 wrote: »

YorkshireBoy/InsideInsurance,


Thanks both for your advice. I must say I'd never heard of those reason codes so thankyou. Also, what does LBA mean?

To be honest I want the least aggro possible.

LBA is "letter before action", meaning a letter you send to someone to inform them of your intention to commence legal proceedings if they don't resolve the situation.

Since you've said you'd like the least aggro, I would recommend sticking with the chargebacks process. A Section 75 claim is fundamentally a claim against the card issuer which makes them much more defensive than if you just asked them to help you out by raising a dispute with the card scheme operator.

As YorkshireBoy said, you should have a good case for RC53 since the goods have been returned. I hope you manage to get some comfortable seating soon!