Section 75 vs Chargeback

chattychappy

derps wrote: »

If you sue them, your case will take months and months, it'll cost you money to file your claim and you won't see a refund until after the judgment finally comes through - perhaps just in time for Christmas 2016!

Also, if I was a bank that received a court claim under s.75 from a customer that refused to cooperate with a chargeback, I'd seek to recover my wasted legal costs from the customer. Parties to a dispute are obligated to be reasonable and deal with matters out of court where possible. The bank has a quick and free means of getting your money back so it would be very unreasonable of you to refuse this and go to court and frankly issuing a claim under the circumstances would be ridiculous.

It could take a few months, but the bank would likely settle long before a hearing. As I pointed out, I would still cooperate with chargeback. S75 makes the CC liable for breach of contract - you have every right to expect the bank to pay out swiftly and no court would penalise you for issuing a claim if they do not do this (and I'm in court a lot). Chargeback is simply a mechanism, not a legal right. No reason not to follow this in parallel - but it's S75 that gives you the legal right.

dantheram1985

FWIW My credit card company have told it's customers to raise a S75 claim due to the circumstances of 247's demise - they state they are no longer trading so a charge back wouldn't work.

unholyangel

derps wrote: »

I personally would definitely not do this. OP, you'll get your money back right away if you let them raise a chargeback as banks provide upfront refunds. They would then only take the money back if the retailer's bank is able to demonstrate that the claim isn't valid. Since the retailer has said it isn't going to send the goods, it seems like you'll definitely win the claim.

If you sue them, your case will take months and months, it'll cost you money to file your claim and you won't see a refund until after the judgment finally comes through - perhaps just in time for Christmas 2016!

Also, if I was a bank that received a court claim under s.75 from a customer that refused to cooperate with a chargeback, I'd seek to recover my wasted legal costs from the customer. Parties to a dispute are obligated to be reasonable and deal with matters out of court where possible. The bank has a quick and free means of getting your money back so it would be very unreasonable of you to refuse this and go to court and frankly issuing a claim under the circumstances would be ridiculous.

Misleading info there.

When claiming under Section 75, it is a statutory right. No court in the country is going to penalise a consumer who files a claim when a business refuses to meet their statutory obligations under law.


Second, with a section 75 claim you do not file in court straight away. You first (obviously) approach the credit supplier. If they reject your claim then you refer it to the financial ombudsman - at cost to the credit supplier. The Financial ombudsman can issue a judgement that is binding on the credit supplier but not on the consumer - they do use law as a basis for their decisions but they also use what they think is fair - and often award compensation where the bank have neglected their statutory duty.

If the financial ombudsman rejected your claim, THEN you would file in court. So you're quite right in saying that issuing a claim in court under the circumstances would be ridiculous.

dantheram1985

unholyangel wrote: »

Misleading info there.

When claiming under Section 75, it is a statutory right. No court in the country is going to penalise a consumer who files a claim when a business refuses to meet their statutory obligations under law.


Second, with a section 75 claim you do not file in court straight away. You first (obviously) approach the credit supplier. If they reject your claim then you refer it to the financial ombudsman - at cost to the credit supplier. The Financial ombudsman can issue a judgement that is binding on the credit supplier but not on the consumer - they do use law as a basis for their decisions but they also use what they think is fair - and often award compensation where the bank have neglected their statutory duty.

If the financial ombudsman rejected your claim, THEN you would file in court. So you're quite right in saying that issuing a claim in court under the circumstances would be ridiculous.

Any idea on the chances of S75 being successful in this instance? i'm concerned by how much i stand to lose if it's rejected.

unholyangel

dantheram1985 wrote: »

Any idea on the chances of S75 being successful in this instance? i'm concerned by how much i stand to lose if it's rejected.

I can't see it being rejected. As others said, it makes the card company jointly liable with the retailer. Meaning you have the same rights with them as you do (or as you would have done) with the retailer.

j0nathon2

dantheram1985 wrote: »

FWIW My credit card company have told it's customers to raise a S75 claim due to the circumstances of 247's demise - they state they are no longer trading so a charge back wouldn't work.

The charge back is processed via the Acquiring Bank and not the merchant, so the fact they are not trading should be irrelevant.

Crabman

unholyangel wrote: »

Second, with a section 75 claim you do not file in court straight away. You first (obviously) approach the credit supplier. If they reject your claim then you refer it to the financial ombudsman - at cost to the credit supplier. The Financial ombudsman can issue a judgement that is binding on the credit supplier but not on the consumer - they do use law as a basis for their decisions but they also use what they think is fair - and often award compensation where the bank have neglected their statutory duty.

If the financial ombudsman rejected your claim, THEN you would file in court. So you're quite right in saying that issuing a claim in court under the circumstances would be ridiculous.

The process of going to the FOS can take up to and in some cases over a year. It is an advisable but not a compulsory process.

magpiecottage wrote: »

If you go to FOS then the fact that the bank has offered a perfectly suitable alternative but you have not accepted it because you preferred one that would cost the bank money unnecessarily may lead to your complaint being dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

Really? I thought the FOS wasn't able to punish either a business or a consumer.

antrobus

Crabman wrote: »

....Really? I thought the FOS wasn't able to punish either a business or a consumer.

Try it this way;

If you go to FOS, then the fact that the bank has offered a perfectly suitable alternative, but you have not accepted it because you preferred one that would cost the bank money unnecessarily, may lead to your complaint being dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

I see no punishment myself.

unholyangel

Crabman wrote: »

The process of going to the FOS can take up to and in some cases over a year. It is an advisable but not a compulsory process.



Really? I thought the FOS wasn't able to punish either a business or a consumer.

And going through courts can take decades. Key word being "can" and not that it will definitely take that long. Obviously the more complex the case, the longer it takes to resolve it.

Although with something like the OP's circumstances....it would be silly of the bank to let it go to the ombudsman given its a rather straightforward matter and they (the bank) will be the ones paying the ombudsman.

But its good to have the added layer of protection (complaining to ombudsman) if things do go wrong. Saves court fees for one.

Crabman

antrobus wrote: »

Try it this way;

If you go to FOS, then the fact that the bank has offered a perfectly suitable alternative, but you have not accepted it because you preferred one that would cost the bank money unnecessarily, may lead to your complaint being dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

I see no punishment myself.

A creditor can claim from the supplier for any damages they had to pay out under S75 so there isn't necessarily an additional cost to the credit provider.

It is doubtful that the FOS would agree with the terms frivolous and vexatious behaviour. A consumer wouldn't necessarily be expected to understand the intricacies of S75 vs chargeback. If a consumer is told to "do a section 75 claim" they'd be rightly suspicious if the creditor put them off that and suggested something else. Banks are not perceived as being particularly trustworthy.