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

bongoali

grumbler wrote: »

????
The point was that the balance was paid not by the CC, hence it was 'dishonest' to hold Tesco responsible for the total cost, not just for the deposit.

'Legal'/'lawful' and 'fair'/'honest'/'moral'/etc. aren't synonyms.

Indeed, Specsavers...

Dishonest and unlawful are synonyms. Give your head a wobbble.

unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
"that was wrong of me"
synonyms: illegal, against the law, unlawful, illicit, indictable, lawless, lawbreaking, criminal, delinquent, felonious, dishonest, dishonourable, corrupt;

chattychappy

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

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.

It's the small guy that pays disproportionately as savvy people put just small amounts onto a card to gain protection for big spends such as this. The "small guy" pays through normal usage in day-to-day shopping etc. When the "small guy" really needs protection, he typically:

1. doesn't even know about S75
2. is successfully fobbed off by the CC by demanding hard-to-get reports or by throwing up spurious defences
3. can't claim because the item price was less than £100. (£99 is a lot for a "small guy")
4. falls into the various gaps: paid via paypal, paid on behalf of someone else etc.

S75 should be repealed IMHO, or at least "modernised" (eg if you part-pay on CC, then you can only part-claim). At the very least, I would like an opt-out (perhaps in return for cash back) so I'm "forced" to buy this "insurance".

grumbler

bongoali wrote: »

Dishonest and unlawful are synonyms. Give your head a wobbble.

OK, 'synonyms' was possibly not the best term in these circumstances.

unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
"that was wrong of me"
synonyms: illegal, against the law, unlawful, illicit, indictable, lawless, lawbreaking, criminal, delinquent, felonious, dishonest, dishonourable, corrupt;

fraudulent, corrupt, swindling, cheating, double-dealing;
underhand, crafty, cunning, devious, designing, treacherous, perfidious, unfair, unjust, disreputable, rascally, roguish, dirty, unethical, immoral, dishonourable, unscrupulous, unprincipled, amoral;
criminal, illegal, unlawful;
false, untruthful, deceitful, deceiving, deceptive, Janus-faced, lying, mendacious, untrustworthy
informal crooked, shady, tricky, sharp, shifty
British informal bent, dodgy
Australian/New Zealand informal shonky
South African informal slim
Law malfeasant
archaic knavish, subtle, hollow-hearted
rare false-hearted, double-faced, truthless

For instance, it's dishonest to lie. Are you saying that any lie is a criminal offense or that it's OK to lie as long as it's not a criminal offence?

Also, in your first post you didn't question nevmon's point; you simply missed it.

Monkeyballs

So if you were going to spend £24k on a kitchen and you had the opportunity to take out free insurance by paying a deposit on a credit card to take advantage of Section 75 then you wouldn't do it because of the little man or that you feel it is wrong?

Maybe if you had £24k to spare on a kitchen then you might be less judgmental...

If they hadn't done this then they would be out of pocket by £24k and in comparison to Tesco, they are the little man...

MB

Pincher

The range is £100 to £30k.

On the lower end, you want to avoid people claiming for £4.99 and clog up the system with trivial cases.

On the higher end, a wedding can easily cost £30k (unfortunate episode where I channel hopped to some women's chat show, horrible, Errrr...). I know the bride and groom are worthless graduates who have a credit limit of £500, but the daddy (or the mummy these days), could easily have a Private Banking credit card with a credit limit of £30k. In fact, if you fly first class to New York, stay at the Plaza on Central Park, dine at the Russian Tea Room, every night, you would take another credit card just in case it's not enough.

grumpy261

I am no great fan of CC companies, but I share the view of many other forum members that Tesco have unfairly taken the brunt of the cost of this unfortunate affair. To me, this is similar to the PPI 'scandal' where people are getting huge amounts of money for not bothering to read the fine print of the agreements properly in the first place and realising that the so-called insurance would probably never pay out. I DID read mine and decided not to take it for that very reason, but it seems I would have been better off taking PPI and getting a huge windfall later. I even know of someone who used a pending PPI claim to effectively defraud the CC company by running up large additional debt on the card (funnily enough for a Kitchen!) knowing that the entire balance would probably be wiped out in settlement. We are becoming like the US where litigation is the norm and whatever happens, its always someone else's fault.

As for the comments about the cost of kitchen's these people obviously haven't bought one recently. Kitchens are stupidly over-priced (as are bathrooms) and you cannot get an aircraft hanger sized one for £3000 as the surfeit of makeover programmes would have you believe.

bongoali

grumbler wrote: »

For instance, it's dishonest to lie. Are you saying that any lie is a criminal offense or that it's OK to lie as long as it's not a criminal offence?

Also, in your first post you didn't question nevmon's point; you simply missed it.

1. Now who's scrambling around for a technicality. Moving on from synonyms you are now linking a noun to an adjective, to serve what purpose?
2. Do you suffer from must-have-last-word syndrome?
3. I did question an element of what nevmon had written

nevmon wrote: »

That this couple have used the law to gain what they had not paid nor lost

They did pay it and they did lose it.
4. Are you nevmon in disguise?

grumbler

bongoali wrote: »

3. I did question an element of what nevmon had written

Originally Posted by nevmon That this couple have used the law to gain what they had not paid nor lost

...

OK, my apologies then. I did miss this bit , although it wasn't that hard for you to highlight the exact 'element' that you were attacking in quite a rude manner.

Gordon_the_Moron

I personally think section 75 cover should be limited to the amount you've actually spent on the card (i.e. to cover £23k they should have had to pay the whole balance on the card) thus stopping someone sidestepping paying for this protection.

I also agree there should be an option to opt out in return for a better interest rate/better incentives. Most of my credit card use is for supermarket shopping and buying fuel. I can say with 99.99999999% certainty there is never going to be a section 75 claim arise from that.

All that said, the amount of small retailers Tesco have put out of business and the amount they shaft their suppliers I feel about as sorry for them as I'd feel sorry for a !!!!!phile on hearing they had a cold!

grumbler

Gordon_the_Moron wrote: »

I personally think section 75 cover should be limited to the amount you've actually spent on the card (i.e. to cover £23k they should have had to pay the whole balance on the card) thus stopping someone sidestepping paying for this protection.

I think that s75 cover should be limited to cases when the credit is for a specified purpose - as it was at the times when this law was introduced.

In my opinion, there are absolutely no logical reasons for treating CC transactions differently from debit card transactions and for imposing any extra protection (unique for UK) on the top of the reasonable chargeback one that is offered in all countries.