Revealed: Section 75 credit card protection may fail due to payment processing

System

Crabman wrote: »

Interesting - if the law is unclear/a grey area - on what basis is the FOS therefore adjudicating? What criteria are they using internally to arrive at decisions and why can't such guidelines simply be published for transparency?

Ombudsmen don't have to strictly follow the law as they can look at fairness and any other number of issues. Can work in a complainant's favour or against.

Crabman

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Ombudsmen don't have to strictly follow the law as they can look at fairness and any other number of issues. Can work in a complainant's favour or against.

Which is why those criteria should be made transparent by the FOS.

chattychappy

Crabman wrote: »

Which is why those criteria should be made transparent by the FOS.

Not organised very logically, but there is some S75 guidance here:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm. I found it by stepping through their website. Not particularly recent.

Crabman wrote: »

Interesting - if the law is unclear/a grey area - on what basis is the FOS therefore adjudicating? What criteria are they using internally to arrive at decisions and why can't such guidelines simply be published for transparency?

I agree.

I think some of the problems are historical. In the past, the FSA wrote regulations and guidance based on powers derived from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). The FOS handled complaints (subject to jurisdiction issues and compensation limits). Originally the OFT regulated CCs. The FOS took over complaint handling for CCs, and subsequently the FSA (now FCA) took over regulation from the OFT. But the CCA 1974 doesn't offer the FCA the FSMA-style ability to make regulations or offer guidance with the same force as FSMA areas.

I would have thought a FOI request should reveal internal guidance.

Ultimately it's for a court to decide issues of law where it's a grey. Just needs somebody (more likely somebody acting on their behalf) to challenge the issue. The £12 de-facto limit on late fees (etc.) started when a law student went to court to challenge CC fees as being unlawful under the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (now superseded). This prompted the OFT to offer guidance about when it would intervene.

Ann888

I may be about to put this to the test, as I'm preparing a section 75 claim after a kitchen fitting company provided 'unsafe / dangerous' electrical wiring. All needs to come out.

I paid some of the deposit on credit card. The salesman/owner was sitting next to me with a handheld card machine. As far as I am aware the payment was made direct to the company.
However on my credit card statement it has PP* 'kitchen company' - does this mean that PayPal was used at the retailers end ? Does anyone know?
The kitchen/retailers website even suggests buyers pay some on credit card to protect themselves under section 75.
The kitchen company have ignored my complaint letter so was about to try under section 75. Hoping PP* doesn't stand for paypal !

Candyapple

Ann888 wrote: »

I may be about to put this to the test, as I'm preparing a section 75 claim after a kitchen fitting company provided 'unsafe / dangerous' electrical wiring. All needs to come out.

I paid some of the deposit on credit card. The salesman/owner was sitting next to me with a handheld card machine. As far as I am aware the payment was made direct to the company.
However on my credit card statement it has PP* 'kitchen company' - does this mean that PayPal was used at the retailers end ? Does anyone know?
The kitchen/retailers website even suggests buyers pay some on credit card to protect themselves under section 75.
The kitchen company have ignored my complaint letter so was about to try under section 75. Hoping PP* doesn't stand for paypal !

Did the device look anything like this?
https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/credit-card-reader

Whenever I have paid using PayPal, it shows on my card transactions as example: PAYPAL *ARTUK

What card company did you use?

mutley74

Also worth noting that not all transactions made using AMEX cards are covered under Section 75, various exclusions and limits apply.

WillPS

mutley74 wrote: »

Also worth noting that not all transactions made using AMEX cards are covered under Section 75, various exclusions and limits apply.

Excluding Charge Cards - although Amex are in my experience very pro-customer regarding chargebacks.

Ann888

Hi
I'm not sure of the exact look of the payment cardreader.
I use Barclaycard.

Yes, the transactions were I knowingly go through paypal are down as Paypal *company on my statements.
Just wondered what PP* company meant ? ie is this when the retailer uses paypal at their end ?or just something innocent and not for me to worry about.

Agricolae

Ann888 wrote: »

Hi
I'm not sure of the exact look of the payment cardreader.
I use Barclaycard.

Yes, the transactions were I knowingly go through paypal are down as Paypal *company on my statements.
Just wondered what PP* company meant ? ie is this when the retailer uses paypal at their end ?or just something innocent and not for me to worry about.

I'm afraid it does mean the transaction has gone through PayPal, but all may not be lost. The MSE article on PayPal specifically talks about them acting as a "merchant acquiring service" in some transactions. This would be one of them, meaning you should still have cover. I can vaguely remember reading a news article where PayPal commented on this and said it was just like paying for something with a credit card normally.

Actually, I've managed to find the article: here.

Barclaycard may challenge whether you can make a claim, but if they do then perhaps you can quote what they said in that article(!) I'd also recommend making it clear to them that you made the transaction in a card machine given to you by the fitter, otherwise they won't know and may assume you made the payment online.

Ann888

Thank You Agricolae, this article may come in very handy.