I imagine there be a lot of people going into positive balances, in the near future.

RichL74

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Shareholders are bottom of the pile.

But I think you've missed the point anyway.

No I haven't. But thanks for caring.

eco_warrior

bigadaj wrote: »

Depends on how many cards they have and what and how much each is used for.

The other consideration is that spending down the balance of any credit would mean that you wouldn't be covered for a section 75 claim for that subsequent purchase, there has to be credit involved.

True - although chargeback is where its at

bigadaj

eco_warrior wrote: »

True - although chargeback is where its at

Section 75 is safer.

eco_warrior

bigadaj wrote: »

Section 75 is safer.

It’s not at all but I’d be interested to hear why you think it is

It’s full of loopholes for one nevermind the obvious limitations

bigadaj

eco_warrior wrote: »

It’s not at all but I’d be interested to hear why you think it is

It’s full of loopholes for one nevermind the obvious limitations

Because it's law, rather than an offer by a supplier to help you out if they can.

The_Big_Bamboo

eco_warrior wrote: »

It’s not at all but I’d be interested to hear why you think it is

It’s full of loopholes for one nevermind the obvious limitations

bigadaj wrote: »

Because it's law, rather than an offer by a supplier to help you out if they can.

It certainly is ‘the Law’,… but only when that law is actually applicable.

I’ve absolutely no idea how Monarch transacted their ‘online’ Credit Card payments but (and it’s a big ‘but’) if they used the services of a ‘3rd Party Transaction’ company there is the possibility that the ‘Section 75’ laws don’t apply and customers won’t be protected.

I’ve only just become aware of this anomaly myself. However, there will be lot’s of gurus on here, far more knowledgeable than I, who’ll be very aware of this (potential) pitfall.

I’m certainly no expert,…please feel free to dissect/dismiss anything I’ve written.

eco_warrior

bigadaj wrote: »

Because it's law, rather than an offer by a supplier to help you out if they can.

I’ve heard that said before but in reality it means little.

If a bank refuse to help via chargeback when they can the ombudsman will rule against them and force them to refund anyway out of their own pocket. So it’s enforceable in that respect as opposed to an offer.

Chargeback covers many more things although obvously section 75 covers other things and is very useful for many people. Both should be used in tandem to find the best outcome for the customer imo.

eco_warrior

The_Big_Bamboo wrote: »

It certainly is ‘the Law’,… but only when that law is actually applicable.

I’ve absolutely no idea how Monarch transacted their ‘online’ Credit Card payments but (and it’s a big ‘but’) if they used the services of a ‘3rd Party Transaction’ company there is the possibility that the ‘Section 75’ laws don’t apply and customers won’t be protected.

I’ve only just become aware of this anomaly myself. However, there will be lot’s of gurus on here, far more knowledgeable than I, who’ll be very aware of this (potential) pitfall.

I’m certainly no expert,…please feel free to dissect/dismiss anything I’ve written.

Monarch accepted PayPal transactions so this could hinder section 75 claims as you’ve alluded to.

Also only the debtor is covered as such whereas holidays involve family and friends so again this can be a sticking point should a bank choose to be stick to the law.

It’s been known for banks to only refund their own customers part of the booking for this reason.