Section 75 vs Chargeback

akkers

My understanding is that the chargeback process takes place between your bank and the trader's bank. If the good have not been delivered then there is no argument and the trader's bank has to refund the money to your bank. Either way you bank has to refund your money.

If you take your bank to court then the court will ask if you had taken reasonable steps to resolve the matter. Of course if you have refused the chargeback process then that might be seen as not taking reasonable steps to resolve the problem.

unholyangel

akkers wrote: »

My understanding is that the chargeback process takes place between your bank and the trader's bank. If the good have not been delivered then there is no argument and the trader's bank has to refund the money to your bank. Either way you bank has to refund your money.

If you take your bank to court then the court will ask if you had taken reasonable steps to resolve the matter. Of course if you have refused the chargeback process then that might be seen as not taking reasonable steps to resolve the problem.

You're only expected to be reasonable in your conduct. You are not expected to exhaust all possible avenues.

Furthermore, if a consumer requested a section 75 claim, the bank refused then the consumer referred that to FOS or courts.....I think you'll find it will be the banks actions that draw the criticism.

Especially since they have no particular reason to - since section 75 makes the retailer liable for the costs incurred by the creditor - unless they have agreed otherwise.

It would be a bit like a retailer refusing to deal with a matter under SoGA when its within the first 6 months and instead telling you that you must claim off warranty. No court is going to penalise a consumer who takes them to court for not meeting their legal obligations.