Section 75 claims where Sage is the middle agent

chanz4

you have been refunded, the fos wont do anything you have lost nothing

chattychappy

grumbler wrote: »

Does it really make any sense to you that CC companies, when providing unconditional 1p credit on purchasing anything from any retailer, become liable for the full cost of the item you buy if the retailer pulls a fast one?

Indeed... and in some cases they could be liable for even more than the purchase price. (Of which, as you say, as little as 1p could have been charged to the CC).

Nebulous2

chattychappy wrote: »

Indeed... and in some cases they could be liable for even more than the purchase price. (Of which, as you say, as little as 1p could have been charged to the CC).

There are an awful lot of things in this world that don't make any sense. Consumers feel that this provides some opportunity of redress when they have hit serious problems with a retailer. I'm not sure that anyone feels the credit card company is really to blame.

What I would have hoped for, with their shared liability, was that companies would withdraw credit card facilities from troublesome retailers. There are early signs when a company is in trouble and the credit card merchants are as well placed to spot these as anyone.

I rarely hear of that happening though.

pvt

redpete wrote: »

I think the loophole is that with direct transactions the CC company is jointly liable with the supplier - not I think a situation the original legislation was meant to create.

I disagree. The sentiment of the legislation is to make lenders jointly liable to ensure they think twice about providing services to dodgy vendors.

The legislation dates from the early days of crooked double glazing and kitchen fitting companies who facilitated payment via loan companies and then liquidated, leaving lots of consumers with long loans still to pay for something they would never get.

I do have some sympathy with the idea that lenders should perhaps only be liable for the element of the money that they actually lent, rather than for a much larger transaction between the vendor and purchaser that they have no sight of, but the justification for keeping S75 is still there, to make CC companies think twice about facilitating payments to crooks.

pvt

Santander responsed to the OP's S75 claim by asserting that Sage being a middle man, break the chain. Whilst this is a known issue with PayPal, where the payee has an account with them and choses to use them to pay, where the middle man is acting as the vendors agent, as in the Sage case, it seems unreasonable.

Santander could presumably argue if the vendor banks with Lloyds, that the payment is not directly from Santander to the vendor, but via Lloyds as a middle man. This makes a nonsense of the legislation.

It is Santander's unreasonable stance that the OP is making a complaint to the FCA about, and rightly so. The fact that the OP was left to resolve the matter himself, and was successful, is not material.

grumbler

pvt wrote: »

I do have some sympathy with the idea that lenders should perhaps only be liable for the element of the money that they actually lent, rather than for a much larger transaction between the vendor and purchaser that they have no sight of, but the justification for keeping S75 is still there, to make CC companies think twice about facilitating payments to crooks.

And how do you see this done in practice? Your CC card purchases randomly and unpredictably declined by your CC provider? The main point of a CC is that the credit you get can be used on anything you want as long as you authorise the transaction - and the CC company has no control over this.

chattychappy

pvt wrote: »

I do have some sympathy with the idea that lenders should perhaps only be liable for the element of the money that they actually lent, rather than for a much larger transaction between the vendor and purchaser that they have no sight of, but the justification for keeping S75 is still there, to make CC companies think twice about facilitating payments to crooks.

grumbler wrote: »

And how do you see this done in practice? Your CC card purchases randomly and unpredictably declined by your CC provider? The main point of a CC is that the credit you get can be used on anything you want as long as you authorise the transaction - and the CC company has no control over this.

I agree there is some argument that CC networks are well placed and perhaps better equipped to assess the stability of suppliers. I remember some years ago I was supplying an IT reseller. It was Barclays Merchant Services that realised things were going wrong and removed their facility. The company immediately ceased trading. Had it not been for BMS, they would have continued their trading practices for some time longer.

BUT, S75 forces the lender to pay out, not the merchant services provider. S75 is a UK "thing". How can a UK lender pursade a Chinese merchant services provider to withdraw a facility from a supplier of fake UGGs because a piece of domestic legislation puts the UK CC on the hook?

The problem with S75 is that I feel I'm subsidising other people's unwise purchasing decisions - effectively being forced to buy an insurance I don't necessarily want. If S75 DID force CCs to carry out more diligence prior to offering facilities (as implied by pvt) then the effect could be anti-competitive. I don't particularly want CCs filtering who and who I can't buy from just because I wish to buy on credit.

Anyway, I'm sure S75 is here to stay. It would be a brave government that helps out "greedy bankers" at the expense of the hard-working credit card users.

If anything, I would expect them iron-out some of the so-called loopholes, extending "cover" to additional cardholers, smaller transactions, transactions via 3rd parties and perhaps debit cards!

grumbler

I would expect them to make the right sensible decision and exclude at least CCs from s75 at last instead or ironing out nonsense.

JackieMandK

Hi, I bought a kitchen from B&Q using my credit card but decided to have it fitted by a local fitter/joiner. Unfortunately there were issues with delivery, incorrect and missing items. This resulted in the kitchen fitter having nothing to do for three days for which he charged me £150.00 per day.

I have complained to B&Q and requested a refund of the full £450.00 but B&Q is only offering £120.00. Their reasoning is that you can apparently cancel a kitchen fitter for 3 days with just 24 hours notice and then expect him/her to come back at your convenience!

If B&Q does not increase their offer can I claim against my credit card (section 75) or would I have to consider the small claims court? Any comments would be appreciated.

[Deleted User]

I doubt section 75 will apply. You paid B&Q to deliver a kitchen, which they did. Delayed delivery is unlikely to be covered, unless this was separately paid for and guaranteed.

What does the contract say specifically about delivery?