Garage Refuses To Provide Invoice - Barclaycard Refuses To Assist Under Section 75

OrsonCarte_2

I initially looked at chargeback but it is more applicable to transactions of less than £100. Furthermore, it is a voluntary scheme and the merchant's bank is under no legal obligation to claw their client's money back for me if they don't feel like it. In this case Section 75 was definitely the way to go.

OrsonCarte_2

Very interesting. Thank you. Deja vu all over again.

unholyangel

OrsonCarte wrote: »

Yes, that is correct. An invoice is only mandatory if both parties are VAT registered.

Your point is well made, unholyangel, but do I really want to take on Barclaycard for the sake of fifty quid? I realise that there is possibly a point of principle at stake here but I don't have pockets deep enough to pursue it.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, both the Financial Ombudsman and Barclaycard appear to be pretty sure that Barclaycard's position is correct. Barclaycard must surely have come up against this situation before now and I would be surprised if they would respond thus if they hadn't already consulted their legal department..

I have searched in depth for any legal or other actions that have tested the point without success.

Good luck to whoever wants to take on Barclaycard over Section 75 as they must be experts by now. I would suggest that the lesson to be taken from this is never to hand over your credit card before getting an invoice. Otherwise, you will simply be running an unnecessary risk.

You may find that the FoS worker is simply going off the banks policy - they are largely just like call centre workers, following a script/trained in company procedure but they are not legally trained (never mind familiar with all the various applicable laws). We had a poster here asking for help a few months back, the ombudsman (FoS) caseworker rejected their claim on some absurd grounds (absurd because it completely contradicted the law). However he appealed it, at which point an actual ombudsman reviewed it and his complaint was upheld.

It shouldn't be like that though - needing to have a comprehensive understanding of the law in order to know their response is wrong/should be challenged.