Visa debit card - section 75???

marjesoutar

Hi,

I have just found out about section 75 and thought perhaps it covered my VISA DEBIT CARD, but the bank say no.

Okay, I have already tried to open a case as I was sold fake jewels in Morocco this year. My bank First Direct have said as the item receipt was unspecific just said "amber" and weight, I need to get something further in writing from the jeweller to give more specific details before they will take up the case. Under the debit card rules apparently, I have run out of time anyway, and the jeweller just kept phoning me, he wouldn't respond in writing to texts/emails as I wanted him to.

As I have lost a substantial amount of money, when MSE email dropped into my inbox, I had renewed hope that I might get something back..............buy my bank say no ........... debit cards not covered by section 75.

It seems ridiculous to me that you think you are covered by visa protection, whatever way you pay, and then the bank wriggle out of it and say no you are not.

Yes I know, gullible and all that............but I'm not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Thanks for any advice guys.

d123

marjesoutar wrote: »

Hi,

I have just found out about section 75 and thought perhaps it covered my VISA DEBIT CARD, but the bank say no.

Okay, I have already tried to open a case as I was sold fake jewels in Morocco this year. My bank First Direct have said as the item receipt was unspecific just said "amber" and weight, I need to get something further in writing from the jeweller to give more specific details before they will take up the case. Under the debit card rules apparently, I have run out of time anyway, and the jeweller just kept phoning me, he wouldn't respond in writing to texts/emails as I wanted him to.

As I have lost a substantial amount of money, when MSE email dropped into my inbox, I had renewed hope that I might get something back..............buy my bank say no ........... debit cards not covered by section 75.

It seems ridiculous to me that you think you are covered by visa protection, whatever way you pay, and then the bank wriggle out of it and say no you are not.

Yes I know, gullible and all that............but I'm not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Thanks for any advice guys.

The bank aren't "wriggling out" of anything, Section 75 relates to credit cards, not debit cards.

grumbler

d123 wrote: »

The bank aren't "wriggling out" of anything, Section 75 relates to credit cards, not debit cards.

Strictly speaking, I think it does apply to debit cards too if the transaction makes you overdrawn.

grumbler

marjesoutar wrote: »

It seems ridiculous to me that you think you are covered by visa protection, whatever way you pay, and then the bank wriggle out of it and say no you are not.

It seems ridiculous to me to make groundless assumptions.

Visa protection (chargeback) has nothing to do with s75 and is absolutely different, especially in terms of the time limits.
Also, for both s75 claim and the chargeback the case has to be very clear for the bank to process it smoothly. In this case it's just your word; that's why the bank insisted on extra proofs.

MSE articles:

• Section 75 refunds
• Visa, Mastercard & Amex Chargeback

PeacefulWaters

grumbler wrote: »

Strictly speaking, I think it does apply to debit cards too if the transaction makes you overdrawn.

I would be intrigued to see any case law, FOS rulings etc to support this theory.

While I can see the logic in it, I think overdrafts fall under different bits of the CCA.

YorkshireBoy

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

I would be intrigued to see any case law, FOS rulings etc to support this theory.

Section 75 covers anything bought with a 'credit token'. Here's what the FOS said back in 2005...

what is a credit-token-

The meaning of "credit-token" is set out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The definition is broad and open-ended, but it includes the use of a credit card or a debit card on an account which is overdrawn (up to the extent of its agreed limit) or which is taken overdrawn (up to the extent of its agreed credit limit) by the disputed transaction.


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_plastic_cards.htm

Presumably their reference to the CCA is to section 14-(1) et seq?...


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/pdfs/ukpga_19740039_en.pdf

marjesoutar

Excuse me? Grumbler,

It's not exactly making groundless assumptions, when it is in fact the case.

I actually asked whether there was anything I could do in this situation to retrieve any of my money..............perhaps if you can't offer any positive advice, it may be better to say nothing. Just a thought!

It's very easy to spread negativity far and wide, but far nicer to deal with people in a more positive way, even if you can't help. I find it just makes peoples' day better and more uplifting to people you deal with.


To everyone else except "grumbler"........
So, given that I cannot get a better receipt for the transactions, despite the fact they were made and shown in good faith, I have absolutely no recourse?

I knew it was a longshot, but thought I would ask. Thanks.

YorkshireBoy

Why are you 'out of time' for a Visa chargeback? The time limit is 120 days from becoming aware of a problem, or 540 days from the transaction, whichever comes first. Neither have passed yet have they?

If you claim under section 75, rather than chargeback, then you're actually taking them to court. Do you think you have enough evidence for that? More importantly, do you think a judge would think you have enough evidence to support your claim?

What was your understanding of the jewellery's true value, were it what they said it was? And how much was the transaction value? This will have a bearing on likely success with either approach.

grumbler

marjesoutar wrote: »

Excuse me? Grumbler,

It's not exactly making groundless assumptions, when it is in fact the case.

I actually asked whether there was anything I could do in this situation to retrieve any of my money....

The groundless assumption was

marjesoutar wrote: »

....you think you are covered by visa protection, whatever way you pay, ...

From your post it was difficult to understand at what stage you've made it.

meer53

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Why are you 'out of time' for a Visa chargeback? The time limit is 120 days from becoming aware of a problem, or 540 days from the transaction, whichever comes first. Neither have passed yet have they?

If you claim under section 75, rather than chargeback, then you're actually taking them to court. Do you think you have enough evidence for that? More importantly, do you think a judge would think you have enough evidence to support your claim?

What was your understanding of the jewellery's true value, were it what they said it was? And how much was the transaction value? This will have a bearing on likely success with either approach.

You can't claim under Section 75 as it was a debit card payment. The OP hasn't said the transaction took them into a debit balance so there's really nowhere to go with this.

YorkshireBoy

meer53 wrote: »

You can't claim under Section 75 as it was a debit card payment. The OP hasn't said the transaction took them into a debit balance so there's really nowhere to go with this.

Nor have they said it didn't take them (authorised) overdrawn.


But if you read my post again you'll see I started it with "If you claim under section 75...". Perhaps I should have said "If you can claim under section 75...", but I didn't think that was necessary, being as the ground rules had already been established 2 posts earlier.