Visa debit card - section 75???

zagfles

marjesoutar wrote: »

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.

What does the jeweller say? Were the jewels amber and the weight described? If so it sounds like the Thai jewellery scam gone on holiday, and I doubt there's anything you can do. The jewels are what they said they were, just overpriced.

Basically they sell you jewels which are genuine (but vastly overpriced) and convince you that you can sell them at home for double the price. With some rubbish about it being a special tax free day or some such nonesense, spun by some "random" stranger who buys and sells jewellery regularly to fund his travels.

I know because I was caught up in this scam in Bangkok. Luckily I realised before it was too late, and didn't buy!

Even section 75 won't cover you for paying too much - it covers you for not getting what you bought, not paying over the odds. If you were sold 10g of amber and you got 10g of amber, section 75 won't compensate you if you paid double what 10g of amber is worth.

marjesoutar

Okay, various questions, which I shall try and answer more fully here.

Firstly, yes this amount did take me into debit balance and my overdraft facility. (Does overdraft make a difference?)

It was substantial over 1k

I bought "Amber", which he receipted as being "amber", and it turned out to be fake. It's not a question of me buying at in inflated price, it's the fact that they are not genuine amber beads, they are resin. (Even though he showed me various types of resin ones before showing me these, to clearly make me believe they were real. - Adding that for anyone reading this to get an idea of how convincing these guys are.)

And yes, he told me I could resell for more when I came home.

So where does that leave me?

Just put it down to experience (which I've accepted) or do I have any sort of comeback from this?

It would only be under section 75, if that can apply, as I realised in April that these were not genuine and first contacted my bank, so my time limit has expired for any debit card claim, but I couldn't go further as I couldn't supply any more info from the jeweller for them.

As for "what did the jeweller say?".............well he said on the phone "bring them back no problem", he didn't want me to courier them to him, but someone in the background was telling him what to say to me. Frankly, pointless!

Thank you.

marjesoutar

I should clarify, that when I enquired about a case through my debit card, the bank disputed the point of it being receipted as "amber".............they said that could be anything, amber coloured etc., which I disagreed with.

They said they needed specifics from the seller of the exact type of amber it was, which he subsequently wouldn't supply.

I suggested that if it said "amber", it should be real amber and surely that was enough to confirm that it wasn't resin etc.

meer53

marjesoutar wrote: »

I should clarify, that when I enquired about a case through my debit card, the bank disputed the point of it being receipted as "amber".............they said that could be anything, amber coloured etc., which I disagreed with.

They said they needed specifics from the seller of the exact type of amber it was, which he subsequently wouldn't supply.

I suggested that if it said "amber", it should be real amber and surely that was enough to confirm that it wasn't resin etc.

In that case, the card issuer is probably talking about a Visa chargeback for goods not as described, not Section 75. If you can get proof from an independant source that the goods are not real Amber and you have proof that you bought genuine Amber jewellery then the card issuer may take this on for you.

Without that, it would be game over.

Isn't Amber resin anyway ?

marjesoutar

Hi,

Yes, you are right of course, it's the age of it, whether it is copal or amber.

Thanks for your advice. Although it still leaves me at a place where if I get an independent source to assess it and go back to the bank, they will still say that time has elapsed and I have no case. Although it may well be worth haggling over, as I don't really feel that they dealt with me fairly at the time.

chattychappy

If it is in the ambit of S75, then you have 6 years to make your claim.

S75 is a UK law which makes the issuer jointly liable with the merchant in the case of breach of contract or misrepresentation. A complication in this case is that the contract was formed under Moroccan law, so although S75 would still apply, the OP might have the complication of showing there was breach/misrep according to local law.

meer53

marjesoutar wrote: »

Hi,

Yes, you are right of course, it's the age of it, whether it is copal or amber.

Thanks for your advice. Although it still leaves me at a place where if I get an independent source to assess it and go back to the bank, they will still say that time has elapsed and I have no case. Although it may well be worth haggling over, as I don't really feel that they dealt with me fairly at the time.

The timescales quoted by the bank aren't their timescales, they're Visa's timescales. All chargebacks are subject to Visa International regulations, your bank can't overrride these. If the bank submit a chargeback it will simply fail if it's out of time.

grumbler

S75 claim is still an option with 6 years limit.
Not that I am saying that it will be easy to claim.

marjesoutar

Thanks, that is really helpful.

So presumably I just go back to my bank and say "I can open a case under Section 75 as this purchase is deemed to be a credit note and put me into overdraft"...........?

Worth a go.

Thanks.

chattychappy

You could phone first along the lines you suggest. No doubt you will be fobbed off. There are plenty of templates hanging around, but if you initially fail then I would write along the lines below:

1) I purchased XXX for XXX using your debit card number XXX.
2) I purchased from XXX and was told at the time of purchase that the product was XXX.
3) Later I discovered XXX about the goods. What the merchant had told me was not true. There had been a mispresentation and this induced me into purchasing the goods.
4) The transaction put me into/increased my overdraft. As such the debit card used was a credit token within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the Act").
5) Under the S75 of the Act, you are jointly and severally liable for the transaction and therefore I look forward to a full refund forthwith.
6) Should I not receive a refund within XXX days, then I shall issue a claim in the county court and seek to recover my costs in the matter.

Bear in mind:
a) At the very least the CC will demand evidence/expert reports etc to establish your case. This is a standard practice and no doubt many give up at this point.
b) If the CC don't accept your case you can go to the FOS or sue in the county court.
c) If you sue in the county court (and the CC defends), it will be up to the court to decide what kind of evidence/reports are reasonable to produce (not the CC) and for a judge to decide "on the balance of probabilities" what is likely to have happened.

You might be able to adapt this for other purposes, but please note it was written in confusion. I now believe S75 probably doesn't apply, see my post #81.