Section 75 Help Third party issue?

Terry_Towelling

The opinions of Credit Card legal teams will obviously be informed opinions, but usually with a degree of spin to influence things in the direction that favours the card issuer.

Attitudes to what is covered by S75 are changing all the time. My time in cards saw the views of the banks legal teams challenged on many occasions. Indeed, the world has gone from, 'No there is no liability on a credit card issuer under S75 as they are not in any way linked to the supplier', to 'Ok, there is a liability, but only where the issuing bank and the acquiring bank are the same institution, as the use of Visa or MasterCard to exchange payments breaks the DCS chain', to 'No coverage for overseas transactions due to the differences in contact law and the fact that the transaction will have taken place in a country where the CCA does not apply', to 'Ok, so Visa and MasterCard's intervention doesn't matter and there will be a liability', to 'The use of a third party payment processor (other than Visa/MasterCard) breaks the DCS chain'.

It is this last one that I believe will be the next thing to be debunked by the courts. Yes, they may still agree that charging up a PayPal (or other) 'e-wallet' account (that 'belongs' to the customer) and then making payment, does not qualify, but, where a retailer chooses to use a third party processor (iZettle, PayPal etc) to handle the settlement for them, whether face-to-face or over the internet, will be covered.

I understand from posts by Eco-warrior that his issuer bank, will accept a liability where a third party processor is used, on the condition that the transaction was completed 'in store' by CHIP & PIN but not if it was done on the internet. Personally, I don't see why the two environments should be treated differently. It is only a matter of time before the courts get hold of disputes in those transaction environments and turn everything on its head once again.

eco_warrior

We’ve been disputing transactions to Go West With Mickey for a few weeks now

Getting a lot of demand off the back of it.

Allegedly someone has run off with some cash.

Not had any s75 claims yet though, just chargebacks for hotels and Eurostar ticket packages mainly (service not provided)

eco_warrior

summersmum82 wrote: »

I booked and paid a deposit on a credit card to GWWM who were pertaining to be an 'independent travel agent'. it has since transpired that this company has no valid insurance and has not booked my holiday. they have since disappeared with no way of contacting them.
I have spoken to my credit card and asked to claim back £448 (£198 on credit card and £250 debit) under section 75. They say that its not a section 75 issue however as the travel agent is a '3rd party company'. My response was that my contract and payment went to GWWM and they misrepresented themselves by having no valid insurance and by not being a legitimate partner of DISNEY. my CC has said that until I receive no holiday (booked april 2020) that I cannot claim. any advise? surely this cant be true?

Have you not contacted your hotel? They should be able to confirm if you have a booking that’s been paid for. The insurance thing isn’t much to hang a dispute on, not when you won’t even get the service anyway

Terry_Towelling

eco_warrior wrote: »

We’ve been disputing transactions to Go West With Mickey for a few weeks now

Getting a lot of demand off the back of it.

Allegedly someone has run off with some cash.

Not had any s75 claims yet though, just chargebacks for hotels and Eurostar ticket packages mainly (service not provided)

Do you have a feel for the number of cardholders who paid part on credit card and the rest by other (non-card) means, and all they've been offered is the money back for the credit card portion? Does your company proactively check for a S75 liability or do you leave it to the customer to claim on that basis?

I am aware of the S75 denials that may be made due to the involvement of a so-called travel agent but, where the agent wasn't really an agent, and is also the defaulting party, would you think it ethical of a card company to pro-actively offer S75 refunds for the non card portion even if not solicited by the customer? Just curious to understand the ethics being used these days.

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Do you have a feel for the number of cardholders who paid part on credit card and the rest by other (non-card) means, and all they've been offered is the money back for the credit card portion? Does your company proactively check for a S75 liability or do you leave it to the customer to claim on that basis?

I am aware of the S75 denials that may be made due to the involvement of a so-called travel agent but, where the agent wasn't really an agent, and is also the defaulting party, would you think it ethical of a card company to pro-actively offer S75 refunds for the non card portion even if not solicited by the customer? Just curious to understand the ethics being used these days.

We’ve a number of customers who used money transfers, their case handers are currently trying to ascertain a debtor-creditor-supplier chain.

We do proactively use section 75, which I think could be commonplace these days. I know banks didn’t in the past and waiting for customers to ask for it. We’re quite a new bank though.

I think the merchant for these (on the statement) is Beat Disney Deals or similar, which is referenced on the website and some paperwork. However it is Go West With Mickey on the invoice. If I hear of the DSC chain being confirmed I’ll certainly post it on here.