Section 75 Rights/Refund

chocolady

I wondered if anyone could help me. I purchased a laptop from a company called laptop outlet and used my Tesco credit card. It arrived on 6th January and within three weeks I noticed it was very slow. I went to switch it on one day and after sign on the whole screen was black. I googled this series of laptops and a lot of queries on the same problem showed up. No matter what I did I couldn't get it back up and running so I emailed company on 6th february saying that I wanted a refund as I had rejected goods within reasonable length of time under sale of goods act. I was told to approach manufacturer under the items warranty. I replied my contract was with the retailer and I wanted a refund and was told to go to manufacturer. I sent recorded delivery letter and got no response. I approached Tesco under section 75 but they are using chargeback and telling me I need to pay for an independent report to prove the fault under their MasterCard guidlelines. I have written back to Tesco saying I rejected goods within reasonable length of time and want refund and want to use section 75. Any ideas how I stand on this?

InsideInsurance

The problem of UK law is that "reasonable" isnt defined but generally guidelines suggest a week or so unless the product is seasonal and bought out of season etc.

As such after 3+ weeks you are almost certainly going to have been deemed to have accepted the goods and thus it becomes the retailers/ credit card companies decision on if to repair, replace or refund.

At the end of the day if the chargeback works then thats reasonably good, and there is a fair chance it will as they rarely fail. The downside is that it doesnt really resolve the issue as the merchant could pursue you for the monies but at least it puts them in control of the hassle of suing you for the money rather than you having to sue them.

grumbler

InsideInsurance wrote: »

At the end of the day if the chargeback works then thats reasonably good, and there is a fair chance it will as they rarely fail.

The problem with the chargeback is that the OP won't have the cost of the report reimbursed.
If it's s75 claim, then everything has to be refunded.

I sugges the OP sticks to her guns, makes it clear that it's s75 claim, not chargeback, and demands the cost of the report refunded as well.
Tesco will chargeback the company regardless, but this will be the business between Tesco and the company.

InsideInsurance

grumbler wrote: »

The problem with the chargeback is that the OP won't have the cost of the report reimbursed.
If it's s75 claim, then everything has to be refunded.

I sugges the OP sticks to her guns, makes it clear that it's s75 claim, not chargeback, and demands the cost of the report refunded as well.
Tesco will chargeback the company regardless, but this will be the business between Tesco and the company.

It would be unusual for an engineers report to be necessary for a chargeback. As the money doesnt come out of the banks pocket they tend to simply be judge, jury and executioner and it 99% of the time simply comes down to if they are willing to put a chargeback through. Convincing a bank to do a chargeback can be more problematic, having personally had to argue with Barclays several times.

If they are being a pain and saying the engineers report is necessary then S75 could be better but as it comes out of their pocket initially they are much more likely to defend the claim.


Can the bank do a chargeback if they are found liable under S75? They do "inherit" the OPs right of claim against the merchant but I am not sure that they can use the chargeback mechanism to make that claim, especially as you say the claim can be for a higher amount than the original transaction if there is subsequent damage or fees involved.

grumbler

What I said was based on the OP's statement:

chocolady wrote: »

....they are using chargeback and telling me I need to pay for an independent report to prove the fault under their MasterCard guidlelines.

SnowTiger

InsideInsurance wrote: »

It would be unusual for an engineers report to be necessary for a chargeback. As the money doesnt come out of the banks pocket they tend to simply be judge, jury and executioner and it 99% of the time simply comes down to if they are willing to put a chargeback through.

Isn't all this talk about chargeback and section 75 a bit premature?

OP appears to have a faulty laptop. Forgetting the slow down, which could be something that happens on a low-spec machine over time due to installing software for example, the screen appears not to be working.

As the laptop is under six months old, it's up to the retailer to repair, replace or refund; unless the fault has been caused by he OP. Is the retailer refusing to do this?

grumbler

SnowTiger wrote: »

As the laptop is under six months old, it's up to the retailer to repair, replace or refund; unless the fault has been caused by he OP. Is the retailer refusing to do this?

chocolady wrote: »

.... I replied my contract was with the retailer and ... was told to go to manufacturer. I sent recorded delivery letter and got no response.

If they refused a refund they should have suggested a repair, not fobbed the customer off to the manufacturer.

Chrysalis

In theory a chargeback should be easier than s75 because if I understand right.

s75 credit card refunds out of own pocket?
chargeback refund ultimately comes from the retailer with a fee on top for the credit card company?

I agree that the retailer is been unreasonable. Generally if I buy something and it has issues within say 3 weeks like the OP I expect the retailer to deal with it.

Here is what I would do.

Contact the retailer and tell them they have one chance, you want an exchange/repair or a chargeback will occur. If you want a refund then ask for that instead.

If they dont cooperate after this then persist with the card company, make it clear you will not pay that part of your balance if they start getting stubborn.

In a best case scenario you will likely have to fill in a form with details explaining whats happened, it would be wise to somehow show proof of the fault on the laptop, like a video clip or something. Also show proof that the retailer isnt cooperating.

info here http://www.laptopoutlet.co.uk/returns.html

Is very vague, but no promise of no hassle returns which would have helped your case.

bengal-stripe

grumbler wrote: »

If they refused a refund they should have suggested a repair, not fobbed the customer off to the manufacturer.

But is was the OP in the first place who aggressively demanded her money back and, apparently, was not interested in an amicable solution. Only an inspection of the computer could have decided, whether or not the fault was due to misuse of the equipment.

chocolady wrote: »

I emailed company on 6th february saying that I wanted a refund as I had rejected goods within reasonable length of time under sale of goods act.

I presume the OP is still in possession of the computer.

grumbler

bengal-stripe wrote: »

But is was the OP in the first place who aggressively demanded her money back and, apparently, was not interested in an amicable solution.

I agree, but it makes no sense to advise demanding a refund from the manufacturer. So, implicitly they suggested a repair, but refused to fulfill their obligations under SOGA.

Chrysalis wrote: »

If they dont cooperate after this then persist with the card company, make it clear you will not pay that part of your balance if they start getting stubborn.

They will be happy to keep charging the interest forever.

If they reject a rightful s75 claim, threaten them with court actions, not with non-paying.

InsideInsurance

grumbler wrote: »

If they reject a rightful s75 claim, threaten them with court actions, not with non-paying.

May as well go for the FOS rather than court as there is no cost risk for the OP and in theory if they arent happy with the final response from the FOS the court option would still be open