MSE News: 'I got £23k back under Section 75 after paying just £200 on credit card'

stator

Agree with above, seems exploitative to use a loophole in the law to lump Tesco with a huge cost when they only paid a tiny fraction on the CC. If the whole thing had been paid via the credit card then fair enough.
If a company had done this to a consumer, MSE would have been outraged.

PhenoM

Wow. What's with all the love for Tesco?

Section 75 is one of the pillars of consumer protection and I bet some of you would have changed your tone had it been you instead of the couple who got their money back.

It's rightly said:

“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behaviour.”

I for one, am really happy for the couple and the savvy way they used to protect themselves.

grumbler

PhenoM wrote: »

Section 75 is one of the pillars of consumer protection

Wow.
It's just a relict law created when credit cards didn't exist. It makes no sense whatsoever and is a pure technicality if applied to credit cards, but unfortunately our well paid lawmakers are too busy to change it. No doubt this 'pillar' will be changed sooner or later. Knowing UK, unfortunately, it's rather later than sooner.

and I bet some of you would have changed your tone had it been you instead of the couple who got their money back.
It's rightly said:

“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behaviour.”

Well, I keep taking advantage of it, but this doesn't stop me from calling it unfair, stupid, nonsensical and relict.

I for one, am really happy for the couple and the savvy way they used to protect themselves.

So am I, but even more I feel sorry for Tesco regardless.

dest

Wonder what happened to the 23k the company took just before going bust, payment to the directors?

PeacefulWaters

I can't feel sorry for the principle of credit card company having joint liability for the whole amount.

It's enshrined in law. That law existed long before Tesco entered the credit card business. It's one of the costs of doing business in that industry.

Because of that law, I always pay at least part of any large purchase by credit card.

While I've never had to use section 75 in anger it's there to protect the small guy and long may that remain the case.

Alpine_Star

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

It's enshrined in law. That law existed long before Tesco entered the credit card business. It's one of the costs of doing business in that industry.

Exactly.


Tesco are the worst credit card company when it comes to sec 75 in my experience and purposely attempt to avoid their obligations under the consumer credit act as they clearly did in this case.

This is the FOS decision:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.u...x?FileID=42271

chanz4

It will put card companys out of business if too many of these, as they will just withdraw.

Hooloovoo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.u...x?FileID=42271

Broken link. Here's the correct one:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=42271

tgroom57

robin58 wrote: »

I think the bigger question here is, why are they paying out £23000 for a kitchen.

Was it gold plated!!

Indeed, downsizing to a £23k kitchen ? what did they have before :rotfl:

And why did they pay the director personally instead of making the money payable to the company?

Hooloovoo

robin58 wrote: »

I think the bigger question here is, why are they paying out £23000 for a kitchen.

Was it gold plated!!

Kitchens are expensive.

Even a moderately sized kitchen can cost upwards of £10k if you opt for solid wood cabinets rather than foil-wrapped rubbish, and quality appliances.

If it's a full refurb of a large kitchen including replastering, wall tiling, floor tiles, lots of cabinets, long granite countertops - I can see it easily costing double that amount.

Just because you don't have and can't comprehend a kitchen large enough to cost that much doesn't mean they don't exist - and I would say actually quite common.