New Kitchen fitting disaster looking for advice.

theonlywayisup

As per post 6.

I own a company and use Paypal as my merchant provider - they clear some payments made to my company. Those payments are NOTHING to do with Paypal and the break in the chain regarding Section 75.

You need to go back Santander and tell them you paid using their card in a machine and input the PIN for your Santander card.

ukstreets

theonlywayisup wrote: »

As per post 6.

You need to go back Santander and tell them you paid using their card in a machine and input the PIN for your Santander card.

In my appeal to Santanders decision I told them exactly that and they referred to their legal team who told me that they looked into the case in detail and do not see S75 applying as Paypal breaks the link. They have told me to go to the ombudsman. Is it worth going back to Santander again based on the news about Barclaycard and MBNA both now accepting the paypal card reader as qualifying for S75.

eddddy

ukstreets wrote: »

Is it worth going back to Santander again based on the news about Barclaycard and MBNA both now accepting the paypal card reader as qualifying for S75.

It might be helpful to get a copy of the FOS decision about MBNA (rather than just the news stories).

The FOS normally publish their decisions here: http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk

But this one doesn't seem to be there yet. Which? published their article in July 2017, so it may be a recent decision that takes a while to get onto the FOS website.

Maybe if you phone the FOS, they might be able to send you a copy of the MBNA S75 decision.
See: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/index.html

theonlywayisup

ukstreets wrote: »

In my appeal to Santanders decision I told them exactly that and they referred to their legal team who told me that they looked into the case in detail and do not see S75 applying as Paypal breaks the link. They have told me to go to the ombudsman. Is it worth going back to Santander again based on the news about Barclaycard and MBNA both now accepting the paypal card reader as qualifying for S75.

You need to be firm with them and explain that Paypal was the merchant provider the seller used and not something the buyer *you used. There was no break in the link.

Merchant account providers give businesses the ability to accept debit and credit cards in payment for goods and services. Paypal are both a merchant provider and an online e-wallet. You did not use the e-wallet and as a buyer you generally have no idea who the seller uses as a merchant provider.

m0bov

If you feel you were mislead and felt you were paying the kitchen fitters and NOT paypal, could you report the transaction as fraud? I would be miffed if it we're me. Tell Santander (who have been poor with me in the past re S75s) that were mislead and were not told about paying a third party.

ukstreets

I sent the information about the FOS ruling published in Which?Money and also the Telegraph article with the statement from Barclays and Santander said that they were sticking to their position and they do not see my claim as valid as PayPal in the view of their legal department breaks the chain.

So now it is time to go to the Financial Ombudsmen and hope that they stand by their previous findings in the cases that have been detailed in the thread.

ukstreets

Just a short update on what is happening:
The FoS investigator spent weeks taking information from both myself and Santander and decided that there was no break in the chain and a Section 75 claim would be valid. They suggested that Santander arrange for the correct door and drawers to be provided and the incorrect ones to be collected. They also said that Santander arrange for an independent survey to be carried out listing all of the faults and then I should obtain three quotes to remedy the issues found on the survey and Santander would have to pay for one of them. The FoS investigator also said that Santander should compensate me for delaying the investigation £120.
Satander has rejected this insisting that there is a break in the chain, that there is no evidence that I had not ordered what was supplied and also that they should not have to pay any compensation.

So now it has to go for a final decision with an ombudsman. Hugely disappointed is an understatement and now I have to hope that the Ombudsman views everything the same way as their investigator.

ukstreets

Another update:
So since my last post in December the Financial Ombudsman asked for an independent inspection to be completed by the Furniture Ombudsman. This took over 3 months to get arranged and completed. The report backed up everything I had complained about and stated that to fix one of the issues a complete redesign of the room would be needed.
In addition we had a leak from our sink taps which flooded the kitchen and highlighted serious issues with the quality of the electrical work. I supplied the FoS with a report about the leak which said that the tap had been incorrectly fitted causing the leak. So the FoS now have two reports to consider.
I believe that Santander accept our claim is valid as they have asked the FoS investigator for 3 quotes to put everything right but I feel that they still want to get off on the technicality.

Today I have been told that it will be another two or three weeks before the ombudsman will make a decision. The stress that we will be rejected on the paypal cardreader technicality is now is getting to my wife and I.

unholyangel

I would try not to worry unless the ombudsman actually rule against you.

It would be strange for them to review it and say paypal didn't break the chain then have the ombudsman overrule that - usually its the other way around, the initial reviewer says that paypal does break it because they're not as familiar/knowledgeable with the ins and outs as the ombudsman is.

Most people tend to think that a third party will always break the chain but as my initial post explained, it depends on what capacity they are acting.

I've also had my fair share of international companies trying to tell me their legal team says xyz only for them to completely cave on receipt of a letter setting out my position in law. It could simply be crossed wires - a solicitor should be familiar with the nuances of the law but the person asking them the questions probably isn't (else they wouldn't have to ask their legal team) and may not understand the difference a small detail can make.