MSE News: Ombudsman requests reform of Section 75 credit card protection as more caug

Chrysalis

Yeah this loophole needs closing but I find it a bit confusing.

e.g. if you pay for a meal in a restaurant, the payment is processed still by a 3rd party usually a bank.

I think what they mean is if you order something online and then you are redirected to another website to complete the payment. This loophole definitely needs closing as many sites use payment portals.

boo_star

Chrysalis wrote: »

Yeah this loophole needs closing but I find it a bit confusing.

e.g. if you pay for a meal in a restaurant, the payment is processed still by a 3rd party usually a bank.

I think what they mean is if you order something online and then you are redirected to another website to complete the payment. This loophole definitely needs closing as many sites use payment portals.

The loophole isn't third party processors per se, but third parties that you hold an account with.

They take your money to top up your account and then immediately use it to pay the retailer.

The argument from credit card companies and the likes of PayPal being that the transaction was to add a balance to your account and since they did that, a S75 claim will fail.

Chrysalis

You can pay via paypal without been signed up to it.
Also even if you have an account with paypal, if you pay using your credit card, it isnt moved to your account and then used for payment, its just used to fund the payment.
So to me this loophole is to do with been redirected to another site to handle the payment, such as worldpay, paypal, and others.