Nationwide don't know difference between Sec 75 and Chargeback or it me?

LilElvis

boo_star wrote: »

https://www.barclaycard.co.uk/business/files/chargebacks-reason-codes-guide.pdf has the reason codes in an easy to read format.


http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/chargeback-management-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf is more thorough but a little OTT if you're just interested in the codes.

The second link relates to non-EU chargeback.

tomtontom

LilElvis wrote: »

The second link relates to non-EU chargeback.

The rules for reason 53 are identical though - that's what happened in April, the EU rules were brought in line with the US ones

tomtontom

The-Truth wrote: »

IMO it's very much one word against another though. Who's to decide who's right?

The bank, on the balance of probabilities - same as in a civil court.

miniphernalia

meer53 wrote: »

I don't understand how the OP can claim the paint is defective. From what they've said it sounds more like bad workmanship. I can see why Nationwide are reluctant to dispute this, based on what the OP has said we wouldn't dispute it. I would class this as a quality of service issue which isn't covered by code 53. It would be different if the OP has proof the paint was defective.

I have had several impartial people look at the photos and to look at the car in person who have confirmed not only the application of the paint was done poorly but in places a paint reaction has occured called solvevnt burst which is a paint defect, it happens when the painter badly mixes the paint with not enough thinners, the solvent cannot escape the too thick paint, the gas builds up under the paint then pops like fizzy pop and leaves tiny dotty dips, also there are contaminants under the paint which has caused silicon fish eyes, this is both poor workmanship in bad prep which has then caused defective paint.

tomtontom

It sounds like you have more than enough information to pursue a claim mini. As above I would follow the bank's complaint procedure, and if no joy there you can take it to the ombudsman or small claims.

wealdroam

miniphernalia wrote: »

I have had several impartial people look at the photos and to look at the car in person who have confirmed not only the application of the paint was done poorly but in places a paint reaction has occured called solvevnt burst which is a paint defect, it happens when the painter badly mixes the paint with not enough thinners, the solvent cannot escape the too thick paint, the gas builds up under the paint then pops like fizzy pop and leaves tiny dotty dips, also there are contaminants under the paint which has caused silicon fish eyes, this is both poor workmanship in bad prep which has then caused defective paint.

It's a bit academic really, but everything you have described here is due to poor workmanship. Nothing you have said indicates that the paint is faulty. Poor mixing, not enough thinners, contaminants... are all indications of poor workmanship.

miniphernalia

I have been remiss in not providing an update. Here is a link which explains my success in my case

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=114618

wealdroam

miniphernalia wrote: »

I have been remiss in not providing an update. Here is a link which explains my success in my case

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=114618

Thanks for reporting back on this issue.

All other posts on this thread date from September 2015 where you were asking how to progress this issue.

You have now produced a FOS document which tells us:

I issued a provisional decision upholding Mr B’s complaint on 10 March 2010.

I am struggling to understand this date discrepancy.

I can only conclude that this document doesn't relate to your case.

unholyangel

wealdroam wrote: »

Thanks for reporting back on this issue.

All other posts on this thread date from September 2015 where you were asking how to progress this issue.

You have now produced a FOS document which tells us:

I am struggling to understand this date discrepancy.

I can only conclude that this document doesn't relate to your case.

Or that the ombudsman made a typo and it should have been 10 march 2016? Just later in the document, the ombudsman says they require OP to accept the decision by 19 may 2016.

miniphernalia

It was a typo, at the end of the day I got around 86% of my money back