Section 75 Fun - Merchant Pursuing Me?

PeacefulWaters

The OP has twice stated that this is a S75 refund.

He has also stated that the merchant failed to provide the card company with information to defend the claim.

The card company has met its legal responsibilities to reimburse the OP given the lack of defence offered.

The OP now has no further liability to the merchant. If the card company has billed the merchant accordingly then it's tough. They should have responded to the S75 claim within the timescale demanded by their contractual arrangements to accept credit cards.

The OP should refer the merchant back to the card company and report them to Trading Standards for harassment.

djamks

Only the Small Claims Court can decide that the purchaser has met his legal liability to the vendor (given that he has now been refunded the consideration) not the credit card company

whizzbee

Thanks again for all these very helpful bits of advice.

By way of an update, my bank have advised that it was (they claim) a section 75 claim and that I should completely ignore the merchant and advise them to talk to their card processor. I've asked for written confirmation of this advice...

I'm currently trying to persuade my bank to contact the merchant, whether directly or via their card processor, since the merchant didn't seem to accept this answer when I put it to them.

So in one sense it seems that, if I believe my bank, then I'm 'safe' but I'd obviously rather they didn't have to take legal action to get to a resolution - hence my request that the bank take some action.

whizzbee

Sorry - was reading this on my phone and thus missed the responses on page 2.

chattychappy - thanks in particular for your detailed outline, which certainly seems sensible:

- I do have written evidence that a refund was promised, including a deadline within which they would pay it (this being in response to a written complaint I made at the time), but unfortunately because there were some phone calls in between it is not specific as to how much was promised

- as far as 'additional' costs go I certainly incurred direct costs associated with 'helping' this company do the job (I had to go and buy in supplementary things - hence the misrepresentation part, again sorry for not wishing to be completely specific here) and in having to get a subsequent new service from a different supplier, as well as the obvious indirect costs in my time etc.

- given the company's attitude when they phoned me last week, and my previous experiences of dealing with them, I'm not optimistic that entering into further dialogue with them will help matters - I'm not unwilling to do so, even if it's simply re-sending them my original letters, but don't want to contradict the bank's advice.

I guess my current feeling is that I'm best-protected if I try to get any dialogue to go through the bank. Certainly if it does turn out that the bank have made a mistake and refunded me when they shouldn't I would be clear that I wouldn't object to paying my fair share (though my understanding of section 75 - if that is what's actually happened here - and the bank's instructions to me, is that the liability would then be entirely with them?). My dilemma is how to get the merchant to do this without us ending up in Small Claims Court first!