S75 Assistance / Query

dantheram1985

Morning all,

We have recently had some misfortune over an online purchase, which is being compounded by a certain credit providers attitude.

The crux of the issue is non delivery of a £300 order due to a company not having any stock and taking over 4000 orders. They have refused to send any orders out and have closed down their website whilst not replying to any from of contact - they also have no address, as they were using virtual offices.

Here's our query - the website forced us to use the billing address as the delivery address, this meant that my name was left in the billing details when the card holder is my partner. We had wanted the item delivered to my work address so filled out accordingly then changed it to our home address but forgot to change the name over. Will this mean a S75 is not valid?

Any advice greatly appreciated

chattychappy

No, in general such technicalities don't prevent you from holding the CC liable for breach of contract under S75.

Use S75 to assert your rights and cooperate with the CC if they wish to use the chargeback procedure. (Which means they cover their loss by going back down the chain.)

dantheram1985

chattychappy wrote: »

No, in general such technicalities don't prevent you from holding the CC liable for breach of contract under S75.

Use S75 to assert your rights and cooperate with the CC if they wish to use the chargeback procedure. (Which means they cover their loss by going back down the chain.)

Thanks for the input.

The bank in question have been really quite nasty and very unhelpful, so far.

They supposedly raised a S75 claim (took over an hour on the phone), we rang back immediately as we didnt trust the person we spoke to and it turned out they hadnt actually done anything!

I know it's important they don't just acquiesce to all claims but surely they must be aware of law in this area, it's very simple and clearly defines joint liabilty for the majority of cases.

eddddy

It may be easier to ask the bank to do a chargeback in the first instance.

That way, the bank takes the money back from the merchant and refunds it to you. (Which is subtly different from an s75 claim, the bank has no risk of a loss).

If that doesn't work, take the s75 route.


Is the merchant 247 Electronics? If so see this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5130847

247 Electronics are saying they wont challenge any chargebacks.

dantheram1985

eddddy wrote: »

It may be easier to ask the bank to do a chargeback in the first instance.

That way, the bank takes the money back from the merchant and refunds it to you. (Which is subtly different from an s75 claim, the bank has no risk of a loss).

If that doesn't work, take the s75 route.


Is the merchant 247 Electronics? If so see this thread:

247 Electronics are saying they wont challenge any chargebacks.

the guy from the bank said to do a S75 and dismissed the chargeback before we could finish the sentence.

and yes, correct, the infernal 247 electronics is the perpertrator!

OhReally_2

dantheram1985 wrote: »

Morning all,

We have recently had some misfortune over an online purchase, which is being compounded by a certain credit providers attitude.

The crux of the issue is non delivery of a £300 order due to a company not having any stock and taking over 4000 orders. They have refused to send any orders out and have closed down their website whilst not replying to any from of contact - they also have no address, as they were using virtual offices.

Here's our query - the website forced us to use the billing address as the delivery address, this meant that my name was left in the billing details when the card holder is my partner. We had wanted the item delivered to my work address so filled out accordingly then changed it to our home address but forgot to change the name over. Will this mean a S75 is not valid?

Any advice greatly appreciated

Which supplier are you talking about??

Not the same one as mentioned in this thread yesterday by any chance?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5130847

OhReally_2

dantheram1985 wrote: »

...and yes, correct, the infernal 247 electronics is the perpertrator!

Did you read the other thread?

Why do you call them infernal?
It seems to me they are a small supplier and were overwealmed by Black Friday demand, and were unable to stop it.
They've already said they are sorry and are refunding those affected. I'm sure it doesn't matter what delivery address you used.

dantheram1985

OhReally wrote: »

Did you read the other thread?

Why do you call them infernal?
It seems to me they are a small supplier and were overwealmed by Black Friday demand, and were unable to stop it.
They've already said they are sorry and are refunding those affected. I'm sure it doesn't matter what delivery address you used.

on the face of it, it would appear that way but a little digging tells a very different story.

dantheram1985

just spoken to the credit supplier and they are advising raising claims against this company as S75 claims due to the nature of the transaction.

Obviously there is something in the rules that provides guidance on what route to take or the credit company is giving out poor info - which is correct here?

chattychappy

I'm a lawyer, so I'm biased*. I believe in using the law..!

S75 together with consumer protection legislation and common law gives you legal rights. You assert your legal rights by setting out your position to the other party/ies and demanding a remedy. (A refund in this case.) You can do this by letter, giving a deadline to reply. If you do not get what you demand, then you issue a claim form which you can do online (for a small fee). That starts the legal process which will be overseen by the court according to civil procedure rules. The CC must either defend or admit. The process will trundle on and ultimately end in an hearing after a few weeks/months. Most cases do not end in a hearing - the sides agree a settlement. The court is neutral and stands in between. Both parties are on an equal footing and the court drives the process. Once you've issued a claim, the CC must defend (ie give reasons) or admit within 28 days.

People here will warn you about things taking money and costing alot of money. Small claims (<£10,000) are relatively simple and the costs are limited. Most people never sue which is what organisations rely on.

Chargeback is not an alternative. It is simply a mechanism by which transactions can be reversed in certain situations. (Eg unauthorised transaction, goods not received etc.) It has no legal basis - it is something the networks have agreed amongst themselves. However they can and do use this to obtain refunds and the FOS has said that given the availability of the scheme, it would consider it unfair if a CC did not use it to assist a cardholder when appropriate. Aside from this, you have no right to demand the CC use a chargeback (unless provided for in your T+Cs). Essentially the CC is "doing you a favour" by "helping".

The best way of using litigation is to be fair, firm and don't delay. Give fair warning (eg by writing) and then kick the process off. But in parallel, take any opportunity to agree a settlement. If your case is strong, the litigation process is a real incentive to the other party to settle things.

In summary, if you're being messed around on the phone then send a letter telling the story and saying that under S75 you hold the CC liable for breach of contract and you expect a full refund within 28 days. (Doesn't need to be that long, but I prefer 28 days.) No progress by 28 days? Then issue the claim form. If things are moving, then extend the deadline a little. If they wish to use chargeback or ask you to fill in forms, then cooperate as far as is reasonable. But the law does not require you to fill in their forms any more than you can require them to comply with your procedures. If you've set out your position clearly in the original letter then that together with the transaction details should be enough for them to pay out.

S75 has been around since 1974. Nobody forces banks to issue credit cards. Nobody forced the networks to offer this merchant a facility....

So it's not really "which route" (even though the CC might see it that way). Chargeback can be a way to deliver your S75 rights - and one which CCs like because they can recover the monies.

While I'm at it, not all transactions are covered by S75. Eg transactions with an item value below £100 are not covered - but might still be available for chargeback. Likewise a breach of contract relating to a transaction which happened up to 6 years ago might still be covered by S75, but there is a time limit for chargeback (3 or 6 months, I forget).

(*disclaimer applies: am not giving legal advice here...!! I'm off duty, had a beer and am not even in the UK at the moment!)

OhReally_2

chattychappy wrote: »

I'm a lawyer, so I'm biased*. I believe in using the law..!

S75 together with consumer protection legislation and common law gives you legal rights. You assert your legal rights by setting out your position to the other party/ies and demanding a remedy. (A refund in this case.) You can do this by letter, giving a deadline to reply. If you do not get what you demand, then you issue a claim form which you can do online (for a small fee). That starts the legal process which will be overseen by the court according to civil procedure rules. The CC must either defend or admit. The process will trundle on and ultimately end in an hearing after a few weeks/months. Most cases do not end in a hearing - the sides agree a settlement. The court is neutral and stands in between. Both parties are on an equal footing and the court drives the process. Once you've issued a claim, the CC must defend (ie give reasons) or admit within 28 days.

People here will warn you about things taking money and costing alot of money. Small claims (<£10,000) are relatively simple and the costs are limited. Most people never sue which is what organisations rely on.

Chargeback is not an alternative. It is simply a mechanism by which transactions can be reversed in certain situations. (Eg unauthorised transaction, goods not received etc.) It has no legal basis - it is something the networks have agreed amongst themselves. However they can and do use this to obtain refunds and the FOS has said that given the availability of the scheme, it would consider it unfair if a CC did not use it to assist a cardholder when appropriate. Aside from this, you have no right to demand the CC use a chargeback (unless provided for in your T+Cs). Essentially the CC is "doing you a favour" by "helping".

The best way of using litigation is to be fair, firm and don't delay. Give fair warning (eg by writing) and then kick the process off. But in parallel, take any opportunity to agree a settlement. If your case is strong, the litigation process is a real incentive to the other party to settle things.

In summary, if you're being messed around on the phone then send a letter telling the story and saying that under S75 you hold the CC liable for breach of contract and you expect a full refund within 28 days. (Doesn't need to be that long, but I prefer 28 days.) No progress by 28 days? Then issue the claim form. If things are moving, then extend the deadline a little. If they wish to use chargeback or ask you to fill in forms, then cooperate as far as is reasonable. But the law does not require you to fill in their forms any more than you can require them to comply with your procedures. If you've set out your position clearly in the original letter then that together with the transaction details should be enough for them to pay out.

S75 has been around since 1974. Nobody forces banks to issue credit cards. Nobody forced the networks to offer this merchant a facility....

So it's not really "which route" (even though the CC might see it that way). Chargeback can be a way to deliver your S75 rights - and one which CCs like because they can recover the monies.

While I'm at it, not all transactions are covered by S75. Eg transactions with an item value below £100 are not covered - but might still be available for chargeback. Likewise a breach of contract relating to a transaction which happened up to 6 years ago might still be covered by S75, but there is a time limit for chargeback (3 or 6 months, I forget).

(*disclaimer applies: am not giving legal advice here...!! I'm off duty, had a beer and am not even in the UK at the moment!)

You forgot the bit about the credit card being allowed to make the supplier party to any claim

You are right though, such actions don't usually result in a hearing. The credit card tells the customer to try and sort it out with the supplier, and that more often than not works (unless the supplier has gone bust, which despite what was said on the other thread, is definitely not the case.)

As you know, being a self proclaimed lawyer, a judge will take short shift to anyone wasting a court's time when the complainant hasn't taken all reasonable attempts to resolve the matter out of court first