Visa debit card - section 75???

grumbler

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Claim for what exactly - please be precise and tell us which part of the act you are claiming against?

The part of the act is called Section 75.
Despite being very general, it does mention misrepresentation along with breach of contract.

YorkshireBoy

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Claim for what exactly - please be precise and tell us which part of the act you are claiming against?

Well throughout this thread, including the thread title, there are several mentions of "section 75", which may give you a clue.


But if you're wanting 'precision', how about 75(1). The key word is 'misrepresentation'.

jonesMUFCforever

Well without proof the bank won't pay out will they especially as the receipt states what he bought?
Why does he not go through the chargeback route?

grumbler

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Why does he not go through the chargeback route?

Because when the OP "realised ... that these were not genuine and first contacted ....bank, ....time limit has expired".

marjesoutar

Well it all seems to be a moot point at the moment as FIRST DIRECT are still denying that I can claim under this act, despite me copying the letter kindly posted previously.

They have directed me to WHICH, Citizens Advice and Moneysavingexpert................to get advice on the matter, despite me telling them I have been advised by moneysaving expert........

Wasn't there an ad at one point on "a bank that listens"???

I have asked the matter to be passed to a manager who knows the exact law, to respond.

If I still receive no joy, it's probably a case of going straight to court.

jonesMUFCforever

Going to court - yes that is you putting your hand in your pocket to finance the case - are you prepared to do that?

chattychappy

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Going to court - yes that is you putting your hand in your pocket to finance the case - are you prepared to do that?

Yep, but the joy of small claims (assuming the OP is claiming less than £10K) is that there is limited scope for the other party to recover costs if the OP loses.

To start the claim, the fees are here:
https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

Eg for a claim of £500 to £1000 it costs £60. The hope would be that by making the claim, the CC won't want the expense of defending and they will make an offer. Other options include mediation. At the very least, the OP is paying £60 for the claim to be taken more seriously.
If both parties cannot resolve matters, there might be further costs ("allocation"), but they will be of the same order. Of course if the OP wins, these are recoverable, along with interest.

I like the psychology - instead of all this stuff about "asking the bank" to process the claim, waiting for replies, or listening to their patronising comments about the law not applying in this case, going to Citizen's Advice or disproportionate demands for proof/reports etc., the OP is more in the driving seat as he/she can, if it goes that far, drag the CC before a judge. Ie the litigation process dictates the conduct of the parties, not the CC company.

I can't give the detail here, but I was helping a little man against a financial institution last week. We settled very favourable after two preliminary hearings. It was great to hear the judge tear into the "fake lawyer" that the institution put up who came to court with the attitude that they were beyond challenge by little people and tried to tell the judge all about their internal procedures/regs etc., none of which the judge was prepared to listen to. He took a very pragmatic view. The court "service" is rubbish, but the actual judges can be fantastic in cutting the c**p.

BTW I don't want to give the OP false hope. She/he has to consider carefully the hassle involved and be sure of the facts, the law and how the law can be applied to the facts. But ultimately the courts are their to settle disputes and they are full of first time litigants in person having their crack of the whip!

Armorica

it's difficult to claim misrepresentation when you were buying the goods in person and just chose not to verify the goods for which you were spending a very large sum of money.

grumbler

And how are you supposed to 'verify' jewelry when buying it?

meer53

grumbler wrote: »

And how are you supposed to 'verify' jewelry when buying it?

You can't. Especially in places like Morocco. Which is why it's never a good idea to spend more than you're prepared to lose if it turns out to be not what you expected.

If you are going to risk it, at least get some sort of receipt with a full description of what you're buying. If the seller won't provide that, walk away.

If the OP had got a receipt which stated the item was genuine Amber then they wouldn't be having a problem now. A chargeback would have been sufficient to get a refund.

From what the OP has said, that the jewellery is Resin, then even with evidence, this might not work anyway as Amber is Resin.