Visa debit card - section 75???

Armorica

*tuts* selective reading

You read the summary box about credit in general for CAB. If you read further down you will see

If there's a breach of contract, either the credit provider, the trader, or both, may be responsible for giving you your money back. If both the trader and the credit provider are responsible, this is called equal liability. It is sometimes referred to as Section 75 after the section where it appears in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

and

Credit agreements that don't offer this protection include:
overdrafts agreements where you’ve promised to repay with a single repayment, such as a chargecard

'Regulated' means 'regulated' -_- in this case, a credit agreement that is subject to legisation (rather than one that isn't)

What your common sense is telling you isn't particularly relevant. What matters is what the legislation actually says (and how the courts would interpret it).

For the OFT text, it's simply a matter of comprehension aka section 75/equal liability doesn't cover charge cards.

"Why" debit cards/overdrafts are excluded is because the legislation doesn't say they are included. Looking for a more insightful answer is overthinking it.

derps

grumbler wrote: »

Common sense.
...

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

You need more than your "common sense" to understand the law. These terms are all defined in the Act if you cared to read it.

For example, the fixed monthly payment issue is specifically mentioned in s.75 itself which makes me suspect that you may have never even read it.

"75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.
...
(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—
...
(c)under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit—
...
which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one"

The fact that Section 75 doesn't include a flashing red banner saying "DEBIT CARDS AREN'T COVERED" doesn't mean this isn't the case. Why on Earth would anyone write laws in such a way that you have to exhaustively list everything the law isn't concerned with? Can you point to anything in the Act or elsewhere that says debit cards are covered? And I mean something other than "common sense".

nguyendinhtruong1991

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.

It seems ridiculous to me to make groundless assumptions.

mightymole

let me get this right you brought the items believing they where gunuine maybe listed as so by seller which turns out to be fake??? then thats not down to the bank thats between u n seller in morocco nothing to do with bank

grumbler

derps wrote: »

You need more than your "common sense" to understand the law.

Absolutely. As I said many times s75 doesn't make any sense when applied to credit cards. Hardly a surprise that it's a unique feature of UK reality that you will not find in other countries.

These terms are all defined in the Act if you cared to read it.

Well, firstly, in my very first post I did say "I think", not that what I said was a fact.
Secondly, I did care to read, but as I struggled to find a readable 2006 edition, I used the 1974 one where the paragraph (c) that you quoted below was missing (or, at least, I can't find it).

For example, the fixed monthly payment issue is specifically mentioned in s.75 itself which makes me suspect that you may have never even read it.

"75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.
...
(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—
...
(c)under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit—
...
which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one"

And finally, this still makes no sense to me, but again, as I said, I am no expert. Why for an overdraft "the number of payments to be made by the debtor... in each... period shell not exceed one"? Does it have to be more than one for CCs?
I know, unlike CC balances, overdrafts are repayable on demand, but I don't see how this has anything to do with (c).

The fact that Section 75 doesn't include a flashing red banner saying "DEBIT CARDS AREN'T COVERED" doesn't mean this isn't the case.

I agree, but neither does it mention CREDIT CARDS, let alone includes a flashing red banner saying "CREDIT CARDS ONLY".

Why on Earth would anyone write laws in such a way that you have to exhaustively list everything the law isn't concerned with?

Absolutely.

Can you point to anything in the Act or elsewhere that says debit cards are covered?

Would it not be far more sensible to ask to point to anything that says that debit cards aren't covered? I couldn't find anything - and my opinion was based exactly on this.

Do you not see a contradiction in what you say? On one hand you say that it's unreasonable to expect from the law to exhaustively list everything that it covers, that I agree with. On the other hand you want me to point to anything saying explicitly that some particular type of cards is covered.

grumbler

Armorica wrote: »

*tuts* selective reading

You read the summary box about credit in general for CAB. If you read further down you will see

If there's a breach of contract, either the credit provider, the trader, or both, may be responsible for giving you your money back. If both the trader and the credit provider are responsible, this is called equal liability. It is sometimes referred to as Section 75 after the section where it appears in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

and

Credit agreements that don't offer this protection include:
overdrafts agreements where you’ve promised to repay with a single repayment, such as a chargecard

Indeed, for a charge card it's a requirement.
For a debit card it's not that clear. Yes, overdrafts are repayable on demand, but it's not the same as you promise to repay it in full every month.
And if it is that simple/obvious, why did the very same authors say earlier that "... it could be ...an overdraft"?

'Regulated' means 'regulated' -_- in this case, a credit agreement that is subject to legisation (rather than one that isn't)

Again, I am no expert, but do you mean that an agreed overdraft isn't "subject to legislation"?

What your common sense is telling you isn't particularly relevant. What matters is what the legislation actually says (and how the courts would interpret it).

I agree 100%. The reply "common sense" was to your question "What make you think".

"Why" debit cards/overdrafts are excluded is because the legislation doesn't say they are included.

Neither does it say explicitly that credit cards are. I am not saying that I was right about debit cards. I am just trying to explain my logic / common sense.

ETA: see also this post that highlights more contradictions in FOS statements:

JimmyTheWig

marjesoutar wrote: »

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

marjesoutar wrote: »

I was self employed and the trip meant no earnings whilst I was away, so I was trying to recoup some money.

Does S75 cover business transactions?

grumbler

mightymole wrote: »

let me get this right you brought the items believing they where gunuine maybe listed as so by seller which turns out to be fake??? then thats not down to the bank thats between u n seller in morocco nothing to do with bank

You seem to be the first one in this thread who implies that the OP would have no recourse against the bank even if it was a CC payment.
Congratulations.

eskbanker

mightymole wrote: »

let me get this right you brought the items

No, OP bought the items....

mightymole wrote: »

believing they where gunuine maybe listed as so by seller which turns out to be fake??? then thats not down to the bank thats between u n seller in morocco nothing to do with bank

What is your considered opinion as to the applicability of Section 75 and how it pertains to misrepresentation, in the context of the discussion in the 64 posts above yours?

derps

grumbler wrote: »

This still makes no sense to me, but again, as I said, I am no expert. Why for an overdraft "the number of payments to be made by the debtor... in each... period shell not exceed one"?

I'm not sure if you're trolling or are genuinely this lost and confused. Nobody said the number of repayments point has anything to do with debit cards, you raised it as something you thought was wrong in the articles someone mentioned.

grumbler wrote: »

Do you not see a contradiction in what you say? On one hand you say that it's unreasonable to expect from the law to exhaustively list everything that it covers, that I agree with. On the other hand you want me to point to anything saying explicitly that some particular type of cards is covered.

Okay, I think you might be a lost cause. The CCA does in very specific language explain what sort of agreements are regulated by it and it doesn't refer to debit cards or overdrafts in the relevant sections.

Please actually read it. And not the unamended one from 40 years ago that you've apparently been using for some insane reason. Here's a link to the official legislation website. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point but it's amazing that you don't seem to realise that the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is a totally different piece of law to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which, subject to many amendments, is still in force. The 2006 Act is not an updated version of the 1974 one and you won't get anywhere trying to find out about Section 75 of the 1974 Act in the wholly separate 2006 one.

What's important to say at this point is OP: do not waste your time on this fool's errand. You've been misled and you aren't going to get anywhere with a Section 75 claim on a debit card transaction. Look how much your advocate Grumbler misunderstands this situation before you act on his or her legal advice.