MBNA / Lloyds Banking Group - Treating unfairly on Chargeback and Section 75

cloudxplorer

I won't be reading this thread anymore. Instead will take the matter to small claims court, if the merchant hasn't resolved in the stipulated time.

k3lvc

cloudxplorer wrote: »

I am seriously worried the poor advise given out on MSE who should have known better.

And you're quite at liberty to go and seek (and pay for) legal advice rather than rely on a free forum who will balance your rights with pragmatism over the situation.


In this case whilst it's all well and good claiming your legal rights and what MBNA should be doing others are seeing the full picture and that shouting about your 'rights' at this stage is unrealistic. Sometimes in life you have to let process run its course rather than looking to circumvent it for your own benefit

Terry_Towelling

On the subject of S75, you would, of course, need to provide evidence of a breach of contract by the supplier before your issuer would look at a claim on that basis.

A Chargeback for 'Not as described' would normally be made where the goods have been returned (or where their return has been 'tendered') and the merchant has refused to repair/replace/rectify/refund. In this case, we haven't reached that point. I accept it does sound like there has been a bit of 'heel dragging'.

MSE contributors do not offer 'advise' (or 'advice' to use the correct spelling) they offer suggestions that may or may not help. Neither should they be expected to act as Chargeback experts. If you believe you already know what your issuer should have done (but hasn't) then why bother coming on this forum and asking for help and then rubbishing what is said to you and those who have said it?

Why also go off at the deep end when you'd only allowed 1.5 hours for people to see, read and digest your post? There are some current Chargeback practitioners on the forum (my knowledge is now dated) but they may be at work (or on holiday) and won't just be waiting by their screens for Chargeback-related problems to appear. In fact, given you are seemingly not even reading this thread anymore, they probably won't bother contributing now.

[Deleted User]

Section 75 or chargeback only becomes applicable once the customer has exhausted options with the merchant.

Silver_Shark

A quick question from me. Once the goods have been collected by the retailer, does the retailer have a legal duty to make the full refund or will they expect the credit card company to make the refund as there is a Section 75 case open?

[Deleted User]

The retailer won’t issue a refund until it’s been collected.

OP clearly has no understanding on such things and has jumped the gun.

eskbanker

Anthonyuk95 wrote: »

Section 75 or chargeback only becomes applicable once the customer has exhausted options with the merchant.

No, that's not true for both, just chargeback.

Section 75 rights against a card company aren't conditional on exhausting dialogue with the merchant, as explained in case 86/8 of the Financial Ombudsman Services's 'common s75 misunderstandings' document:

We thought Miss V had taken reasonable steps to try to resolve matters with the supplier. Despite what the card provider appeared to believe, however, she was not obliged to have done this – or indeed to have returned the dinner service – before she could make a claim to the card provider.

We told the card provider that Miss V was not obliged to exhaust all possible avenues with the supplier before claiming under section 75. And we said we could see no reason why it should not pay the claim.

eco_warrior

cloudxplorer wrote: »

Fellow moneysavingexperts, I have an ongoing issue with MBNA / Lloyds Banking Group who are not handling my transaction dispute properly. I hope your experience and knowledge can give me some guidance on this.

I have purchased a sofa from Harveys in store. The sofa was not as described (by salesman) as well as faulty item. Harveys acknowledged the "not as described" part but refused to acknowledge the "faulty item" bit based on their technician report.

I decided to return the item for full refund based on "not as described" claim". However been dragging on their heels to do anything about it, not responding emails, empty promises on phone.

I approached credit card provided MBNA for dispute who initially asked me to solve it with merchant for 15 days. In that time, I managed to get the merchant to acknowledge "not as described" liability and returns authorization (verbally over phone and in store by manager).

After 15 days passed, MBNA agreed to engage but haven't done anything for past 12 days. They refused to apply for Mastercard Chargeback saying verbal "not as described" is not valid scenario for Mastercard Chargeback.

They then passed on the case to Section 75 case worker. The caseworker is refusing to give any confirmed timeline. They also told me that since the merchant has admitted liability and accept return, they will not refund me. They will instead chase merchant only till merchant pay back to me.

I am disappointed to say the least that MBNA is trying to escape their responsibility by giving me various reasons. I raised a complaint, which was upheld with "feedback given" and "£100 gag compensation" thereby sweeping serious failures under the carpet. But this does not solve the problem and I am still waiting for money from the merchant, they may take 6 months and I will endup doing all the legwork while MBNA / Lloyds happily sitting warming their chairs.

Please help.

EDIT - sorry just noticed the collection date has yet to pass, so this means the merchant will be viewed as willing to resolve under MasterCard rules.


So most of my post was irrelevant so have deleted it

born_again

Silver_Shark wrote: »

A quick question from me. Once the goods have been collected by the retailer, does the retailer have a legal duty to make the full refund or will they expect the credit card company to make the refund as there is a Section 75 case open?

Retailer has 15 days to refund. If not then a charge back can be actioned for non receipt of refund.
Card provider would not refund if they knew retailer was going to refund.

TBH, if there is a charge back option that will be used 1st before a S75 case is looked at.

Charge back = no loss to card provider
S75 = total loss

Terry_Towelling

born_again wrote: »

TBH, if there is a charge back option that will be used 1st before a S75 case is looked at.

Charge back = no loss to card provider
S75 = total loss

In practice a card issuer should really be considering both S75 and Chargeback at the same time when handling a dispute. The two overlap. This was certainly the way the card company I worked for used to handle things - certain members of the Chargeback teams were specially trained in S75 CCA claim handling.

There have been some threads on here in the past where it seemed the issuer involved had separate teams for the two dispute-handling processes and cases sent for S75 review were declined when a Chargeback right existed. Unfortunately the Chargeback time limit had expired whilst the case was being considered by the S75 team.