Section 75 Fun - Merchant Pursuing Me?

whizzbee

Alright, I feel this might be a fun one. Alternatively I might have completely misunderstood something here...

I had a truly shocking experience with a property management (read boiler repair) company last Christmas. In short they missold their services and thus couldn't resolve the issue. They did eventually fix it but after some really awful customer service with their 'dispute' process promised a refund, which never came.

Luckily (I thought) I'd paid with my credit card so after weeks of chasing the refund I filed a S75 claim with my bank, who went through their process and credited the money back to me. All good.

Now, 10 months later, I've received some very aggressive calls and emails from the company (who I will be glad to name a little later) claiming they don't agree with the bank's view and demanding payment.

I've spoken to my bank, who say the merchant (or their bank) gave no response during the 60-day window so the charge was reversed. The merchant are trying to claim this doesn't matter, and all it does is now 'removes the bank from the situation' so they can now pursue me directly.

My understanding is that they can't do this, but I know others here will have a far better grasp of the legislation than me. Help!?

Biggles

whizzbee wrote: »

I've spoken to my bank, who say the merchant (or their bank) gave no response during the 60-day window so the charge was reversed. The merchant are trying to claim this doesn't matter, and all it does is now 'removes the bank from the situation' so they can now pursue me directly.

Whilst I don't know the legal position, I would have been inclined to tell them that this 'removed you from the situation', as you had paid them, and that it was now the bank who they would have to deal with. I would then speak to them no more.

PeacefulWaters

Biggles wrote: »

Whilst I don't know the legal position, I would have been inclined to tell them that this 'removed you from the situation', as you had paid them, and that it was now the bank who they would have to deal with. I would then speak to them no more.

I completely agree with this.

Refer them to the card issuer.

cooltt

Nothing to see here move along!

You followed the correct procedure they do not
You got your money back they got a fist full of nothing

The only recourse open to them is to take you to small claims court which they will lose hands down due to the forementioned.
Case closed.

bris

It's not about legislation it's about whether or not you owe the money. They can take you to the small claims court, nothing to stop them doing that.


You S75 claim was won because they didn't respond in time, if they did challenge it there would have been a good chance your claim would have failed.


The company is right, the bank won't get involved now so they are out the loop, you aren't.


It reads like you got your boiler fixed in the end and haven't paid anything with the reversal, does that seem fair to you?

cooltt

bris wrote: »

It's not about legislation it's about whether or not you owe the money. They can take you to the small claims court, nothing to stop them doing that.


It reads like you got your boiler fixed in the end and haven't paid anything with the reversal, does that seem fair to you?

Fair? You mean like them promising a refund which never came?

With all due respect its all about legislation when things go wrong it's how we establish fact and who ultimately is at fault. Eventually he had the boiler fixed and an offer of a refund, now that has a whiff of liability about it and (given what the op has said) any attempts to recover the monies through the courts would fail plain and simple.

Should a consumer have to put up with stress, inconvenience, shoddy workmanship AND pay for the privilege? Those days are long gone my friend.

Bogalot

When you pay by CC the chain created is lender - borrower - retailer. As the borrower you chose to invoke your rights from the lender and they paid up. They have fulfilled their contractual obligation. That still leaves the borrower - retailer chain, the retailer has the right to claim against the borrower/ customer if they wish to. Whether they would be successful depends on what evidence there is of the promised refund.

Another view could be that the bank has done a chargeback rather than a refund under s. 75. It still leaves you in the same situation, that is resolving the situation between you and the retailer/ service provider.

Bogalot

cooltt wrote: »

Fair? You mean like them promising a refund which never came?

With all due respect its all about legislation when things go wrong it's how we establish fact and who ultimately is at fault. Eventually he had the boiler fixed and an offer of a refund, now that has a whiff of liability about it and (given what the op has said) any attempts to recover the monies through the courts would fail plain and simple.

Should a consumer have to put up with stress, inconvenience, shoddy workmanship AND pay for the privilege? Those days are long gone my friend.

Legislation (and contract law) does not support your view. A court would look at what evidence there is of the promised refund, and if that could not be evidenced they would decide what is a fair price for the work taking into account inconvenience. If work was completed that figure will not be nil, the claim would be partially successful.

It is very poor advice to suggest that any court claim would fail, we do not have sufficient information (from both parties) to determine that.

cooltt

Bogalot wrote: »

Legislation (and contract law) does not support your view.

I stopped reading and had a good laugh after this part.

whizzbee

Thanks all for such quick and helpful replies.

Apologies for being slightly cagey about the details so as not to identify myself or the company but, whilst I completely understand the point of view that 'maybe I should still have to pay for the services I received' in this case those services were really inadequate (missold, slow and required me to then get another inspection from a different company) and the refund was promised so in my opinion (obviously!) I shouldn't have to pay either way.

I guess this seems to centre around two possible interpretations:

1). Because I settled the invoice with a credit card, I'm no longer involved and the dispute is solely between the merchant and my bank. In which case presumably I should refuse to deal with the merchant and refer them to the bank (but the merchant refuse to speak to the bank). Is it likely the bank, or any other organisation (presumably this isn't an ombudsman issue since the bank isn't at fault?) would step in to stop the merchant hassling me?

(So here, the bank's decision to uphold my S75 claim and agree with my point of view is upheld and stands)

Or

2). Despite accepting payment that was then reversed, the merchant does have a right to pursue me for alternative payment.
(Here I guess I'd have to argue it out with them or wait for them to take me to small claims court?)

Sorry for demonstrating further my very limited understanding of the process here!

bigadaj

It's option 2.

One factor is the quantity of money at dispute, which will determine how much effort they are prepared to expend.

They can take this to court but you would then argue your side and if sufficiently persuasive you may well win and they would get nothing with additional costs.