Clydesdale Mastercard / Skrill / Simply Electronics (winding up)

marky9074

Hi there,

When I ordered it stated that the below would be on the statement:

SKR*Simply Electronics Lt

However, I am pretty sure it was just Skrill when it come through on the paper statement (which I cannot find at this exact moment).

Cheers,

Mark

[Deleted User]

marky9074 wrote: »

Hi there,

When I ordered it stated that the below would be on the statement:

However, I am pretty sure it was just Skrill when it come through on the paper statement (which I cannot find at this exact moment).

Cheers,

Mark

That would suggest that you did, in fact, "pay" Skrill and not the merchant directly. It's the same with Paypal; it always has that on a purchase record, and you don't need a paypal account to pay either.

I think the Ombudsman is right I'm afraid. I'd never even heard of Skrill till this thread and personally would never have used them.

marky9074

That was more or less my point though, if you used a card you had to use Skrill, so there was no other option available to me.

[Deleted User]

marky9074 wrote: »

That was more or less my point though, if you used a card you had to use Skrill, so there was no other option available to me.

You had the option to not buy something though. It's the same with Paypal - if you want s75 protection and the site only takes Paypal it's upto you if you want to take the risk.

Personally, I would be reluctant to buy from any site that *only* took Paypal etc, unless the product was cheap. Any reputable proper merchant would have their own way to accept credit cards.

marky9074

I hadn't looked at it like that, but guess you have a point. Just assumed that when paying by a card I would be covered and didn't think too much into the fact there was an intermediary. However, I don't understand then why I would not be covered under S75 by Skrill.

This is what I got from the ombudsman:

Clydesdale Bank investigated your claim under S75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and found that the required debtor-credit-supplier (DCS) link had been broken. This was because you had used Skrill to pay for the goods.

I'm afraid I agree with them. The rules are very strict about this and when you used Skrill you effectively used them as a payment service to pay for the goods. Had you used your Clydesdale Bank credit card, the DCS chain would have been established.

It's clear Clydesdale Bank sent the money to Skrill who in turn paid the supplier, so the bank hasn't done anything wrong in this instance.

They go on to quote Skrills terms and conditions again... which I don't necessarily agree with.

wealdroam

marky9074 wrote: »

I hadn't looked at it like that, but guess you have a point. Just assumed that when paying by a card I would be covered and didn't think too much into the fact there was an intermediary. However, I don't understand then why I would not be covered under S75 by Skrill.

This is what I got from the ombudsman:

Clydesdale Bank investigated your claim under S75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and found that the required debtor-credit-supplier (DCS) link had been broken. This was because you had used Skrill to pay for the goods.

I'm afraid I agree with them. The rules are very strict about this and when you used Skrill you effectively used them as a payment service to pay for the goods. Had you used your Clydesdale Bank credit card, the DCS chain would have been established.

It's clear Clydesdale Bank sent the money to Skrill who in turn paid the supplier, so the bank hasn't done anything wrong in this instance.

They go on to quote Skrills terms and conditions again... which I don't necessarily agree with.

It might be more understandable if you look at it another way...

S75 makes the card issuer equally responsible with the other party in the contract.

With an intermediary, such as Skrill in this case, the 'other party' is Skrill.

Thus the cc co are equally responsible with Skrill for performance of the contract - the contract being that you have agreed with Skrill to pass a sum of money to the seller.

Skrill have done all that was agreed - they passed the money to the seller.

Thus there is no breach of contract that you can use S75 to put right.

What the seller has or has not done is beyond the reach of your credit card company.

Skrill have not provided you with any credit, therefore Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act cannot apply to your contract, via Skrill, with the seller.

ThumbRemote

wealdroam wrote: »

It might be more understandable if you look at it another way...

S75 makes the card issuer equally responsible with the other party in the contract.

With an intermediary, such as Skrill in this case, the 'other party' is Skrill.

Thus the cc co are equally responsible with Skrill for performance of the contract - the contract being that you have agreed with Skrill to pass a sum of money to the seller.

Skrill have done all that was agreed - they passed the money to the seller.

Thus there is no breach of contract that you can use S75 to put right.

What the seller has or has not done is beyond the reach of your credit card company.

Skrill have not provided you with any credit, therefore Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act cannot apply to your contract, via Skrill, with the seller.

Given the above, how does a consumer know the difference between paying a retailer and paying an intermediary.

PayPal, for example, have multiple modes of operation. You can pay using your bank funded PayPal account, or without having a PayPal account you can enter your card details and the money is given to the retailer. Skrill presumably do the same.

What about Sagepay and Worldpay? Both are platforms where you can be transferred to their websites to process payment. Does this mean section 75 is invalid with these as well? If so then there's a huge number of online retailers using these third party gateways who don't give any section 75 protection.

Even more than this there's numerous retailers who embed the third party gateways into their own website. So as far as you are concerned, you're paying the retailer. How is the consumer supposed to know that there's anyone else involved?

DoaM

I agree completely ... and this is a huge grey area in the current implementation of the CCA; in my opinion what has happened here may be legally correct per the CCA, but very much goes against the spirit of it.

marky9074

What urks me is that other card issuers have issued a refund under S75 (customers who also must have used Skrill), so in my opinion that sets a precedent.... but because Clydesdale don't agree then that is that and the ombudsman agrees with it.

I didn't think that the response from the ombudsman would be so black and white, and biased towards the lender/card issuer. Granted it has been deemed that they have done nothing wrong, but nether have I either.....

marky9074

It seems the determination will get sent to Clydesdale today unless I add any more to my complaint. I did wonder whether to make a closing comment regarding that on this occasion the consumer was not protected, therefore the spirit of Section 75 is somewhat abused by third parties.