Visa debit card - section 75???

grumbler

meer53 wrote: »

Buzby is right. The joint liability only comes into play for credit card transactions.

Oh, for goodness sake, ...

There is no real difference between a debit card with an agreed overdraft and a credit card. Theoretically the latter can be in credit and remain in credit after the transaction. Egg credit card even used to pay interest on credit balances.

You haven't said how far into your overdraft the transaction took you ?

This doesn't matter. 1p is enough because the stupid law says so.

Were there other transactions which took you into your overdraft too ?

Neither does this if the overdraft was used for this particular transaction, although the OP did say: "this amount did take me into debit balance and my overdraft facility". I do assume that 'amount' means 'transaction' that isn't 100% clear.

You need to check with your bank whether they will entertain a Section 75 claim for a debit card payment which uses your overdraft.

It's not a question of *want* or not. It a question of *liable* or not. No bank or CC company "wants to entertain" a s75 claim because they have to pay from their pocket for something that wasn't their fault. They do "entertain" such claims only because they don't have a choice.

meer53

Ah Grumbler, i love your optimism.

In my experience, the OP is going to have a fight on their hands with this situation. They seem to like your posts above all the others so they'll just like your posts and ignore everyone elses. Their choice.

Just to add, in my job, i have personally never dealt with a Section 75 claim on a debit card. Even when the overdraft was used. I wish the OP good luck.

grumbler

meer53 wrote: »

Ah Grumbler, i love your optimism.

In my experience, the OP is going to have a fight on their hands with this situation.

By my nature I am not and have never been an optimist.
In this situation s75 is the only option and I did say:

grumbler wrote: »

Not that I am saying that it will be easy to claim.

They seem to like your posts above all the others so they'll just like your posts and ignore everyone elses. Their choice.

Again, s75 is the only hope and so far 'everyone else' failed to prove that it's a 'no go'.

Just to add, in my job, i have personally never dealt with a Section 75 claim on a debit card. Even when the overdraft was used.

Even in banks many people don't know the real difference between s75 and chargeback, let alone the real meaning of "section 75".
Even MSExperts have the title of their article Visa, Mastercard & Amex Chargeback Protection for debit card purchases (ETA: corrected now at last) despite me pointing out more than once that chargeback equally applies to debit and credit cards and there is no need to resort to the 'heavy weapon' like s75 in most credit card cases.

chattychappy

meer53 wrote: »

You need to check with your bank whether they will entertain a Section 75 claim for a debit card payment which uses your overdraft. They may not, which means you'll have a completely different argument to overcome.

Before you start issuing court documents, you need to clarify this first.

In my experience, you often go to court precisely because the other party won't "entertain your claim"....

derps

What exactly makes you guys think the idea that an overdraft could constitute a credit token means that Section 75 would apply to a transaction financed with an overdraft?

Credit tokens seem to be defined very broadly in the Act and could apply to lots of things but the Act doesn't appear to link the concept of a credit token arrangement to the specific circumstances of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement which is defined separately in the Act and is the only sort of transaction which is covered by Section 75. It could be that a DCS transaction is a "credit token" but it doesn't follow that all credit tokens are DCS transactions.

I'm an amateur and going only on the wording of the Act itself, so is there a common law precedent for a "credit token" constituting a DCS arrangement? Or am I misinterpreting something in the Act?

grumbler

derps wrote: »

What exactly makes you guys think the idea that an overdraft could constitute a credit token means that Section 75 would apply to a transaction financed with an overdraft?

The fact that there are no essential differences between a credit card and a debit card with agreed overdraft:

Both are cards.
Both are credit agreements with agreed limits that can vary.
Both can have credit and debit balances and there was a credit card that even paid interest on credit balances. For most CC it's against the T&C to put them in credit intentionally, but this often happens naturally.

The only non-essential difference is that debit cards are intended to be mainly in credit, while credit cards are intended to be mainly in debit.

CCA is a general law, not credit card specific. If it applies to credit cards, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't apply to debit cards.

So, what exactly makes you think that Section 75 wouldn't apply?

derps

grumbler wrote: »

So, what exactly makes you think that Section 75 wouldn't apply?

What I said in my post about what Section 75 covers and how this makes no mention of credit tokens or any of the other various credit agreements that are possible. Section 75 instead only refers to a very specific type of agreement.

The CCA is general and covers a lot of things but that doesn't mean Section 75 is general, too.

grumbler

Section 75 is general in the sense that it doesn't mention credit cards either.

Armorica

section 75 is very specific and refers to a credit agreement under section 12 a or b of the CC http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/12

It can be confused as some account providers will provide section 75-like protection on a voluntary basis

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html FOS says debit and charge card purchases aren't covered

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_different_ways_of_buying_e/consumer_buying_goods_and_services_on_credit_or_by_debit_card_e/consumer_extra_protection_when_you_buy_on_credit_or_debit_card_e/extra_protection_when_you_buy_on_credit.htm so does CAB

http://www.parkerandrews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/oft303.pdf so did the OFT

grumbler - what makes you think it does apply when these three organisations think it doesn't?

grumbler

Armorica wrote: »

grumbler - what makes you think it does apply when these three organisations think it doesn't?

Common sense.
Thank you for posting the links. I'll have a read to see why my common sense failed me.

EDIT:

common misunderstandings

All purchases made with plastic cards are covered by section 75.

No. Section 75 only covers transactions made using consumer credit. So only transactions made with credit cards (including most store cards) are covered. Transactions made using other types of plastic cards - like charge cards or debit cards - are not covered by section 75.

Well, Specsavers spring to mind as I don't see why ...
"So" implies existence of some logical connection between the first and the following sentences, but I fail to see any.
And it's the only place where debit cards are mentioned in your FOS link. Luckily, FOS isn't the last instance in this country.

CAB:

Extra protection when you buy on credit

If you need to make a large purchase, such as a car, furniture or home improvement, which you can’t afford to pay for up-front, it might make sense to buy it on credit.
Credit means that someone else lends you the money to be able to buy something. It may be fixed credit, where you agree to pay the money back, usually in equal instalments, over a set amount of time. Or it could be running credit, such as a credit card or an overdraft, where the amount you borrow is flexible and you can choose how much and when to repay what you owe.

:think:
My common sense seems to be not that bad .

Now, I CBA to check what OFT think about this as this worthless body never inspired any confidence to me.

EDIT 2. Out of curiosity I had a look at OFT's booklet:

Section 75 of the Act provides that the credit grantor is equally responsible with the supplier for any breach of contract or misrepresentation if all of the following four conditions are met.
...
The credit agreement is ‘regulated’.
...
Unlike credit card agreements, where a card holder need pay only a
fixed minimum amount each month, those for charge cards (such
as American Express and Diner’s Club) require monthly bills to be
settled in full. There is no provision for equal liability. This also applies to debit cards

I am no expert and must admit that this makes no sense to me.

What does 'regulated' actually mean?
Where "there is no provision", why, and what does a "fixed monthly payment" have to do with this?

They do mention some "OFT booklet Regulated and exempt agreements", but I can't find it and don't think that it can be less confusing that this one.

Looking forward to seeing some comments from experts.

At Wiki I see:

Regulated agreements
A regulated consumer credit agreement is defined as an agreement between two parties, one of whom (the debtor) is an individual, and the other of whom (the creditor) is "any other person", in which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000 (this figure was subsequently increased to £25,000 and under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 there is no upper limit). An exception to this definition is so-called "exempt agreements", which are agreements made where the creditor is a land improvement company, a charity, a friendly society, a trade union, an insurance company or "a body corporate named or specifically referred to in any public general Act".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Credit_Act_1974#Regulated_agreements

I don't see how this can explain why debit cards with agreed overdraft are excluded.