Section 75

Margaret2

I got in touch with my card company to claim under Section 75 for a service i never received. I was told it was a dispute they would open and would receive the deposit that i paid back. Is this correct, from what i have read about Section 75 it doesn’t seem to be the same.
Thanks

born_again

Post in the Credit card forum for this would be better.

But if there is a chargback right they will use that 1st.

Chargeback = retailer pays
S75 = card provider pays.

unholyangel

If it was chargeback, typically they'll refund straight away but warn you the funds might be redebited.

Check with them that it is s75 and not a chargeback. If they say its a chargeback, tell them to cancel it and start a s75 claim.

born_again

unholyangel wrote: »

If it was chargeback, typically they'll refund straight away but warn you the funds might be redebited.

Check with them that it is s75 and not a chargeback. If they say its a chargeback, tell them to cancel it and start a s75 claim.

You can't cancel a chargeback.:T

Why would you not take the advice given for the best way of dealing with it by card provider?

unholyangel

born_again wrote: »

You can't cancel a chargeback.:T

Why would you not take the advice given for the best way of dealing with it by card provider?

Because the advice they're giving is biased in their own favour. Chargeback is not the best way of dealing with it.

If you have any doubt as to whether your bank cares more about your interests or theirs, just check the T&C's of any accounts you have. You'll see they are overwhelmingly in their favour. Funny that. You'd almost think they're running a buisness

ETA: Or should I have said that it may be the best way for them to deal with it, but its not the best way for the customer.

born_again

unholyangel wrote: »

Because the advice they're giving is biased in their own favour. Chargeback is not the best way of dealing with it.
.

So on your basis if every customer says S75 and they have to deal with it that way. Are you going to be prepared to pay for all the claims. Someone has to pay. As you implhy banks are only in it for a easy life and to make money...
So it will be customers than end up funding it.
A chargeback is far simpler for a customer to deal with than a S75 claim.

Try doing the job and you will find out.

Best a refund in a few days or wait months for a S75 to be resolved.... :rotfl:

unholyangel

born_again wrote: »

So on your basis if every customer says S75 and they have to deal with it that way. Are you going to be prepared to pay for all the claims. Someone has to pay. As you implhy banks are only in it for a easy life and to make money...
So it will be customers than end up funding it.
A chargeback is far simpler for a customer to deal with than a S75 claim.

Try doing the job and you will find out.

Best a refund in a few days or wait months for a S75 to be resolved.... :rotfl:

So let me get this clear....you're arguing (on a consumer rights board no less) that people shouldn't use s75 because it increases the cost to consumers? Apparently oblivious to the fact s75 indemnifies the creditor for losses and that the same can be said for returning under a returns policy or returning under your consumer rights?

A few days to get the initial refund maybe, but then you have the dispute process and the very real possibility of the funds being redebited. Also, s75 doesn't always take months. Some claims can be dealt with in a week.

Try doing the job and I'll find out what? How badly they're paid? How they're not trained in law but instead just trained to parrot T&C's as if they are the law?

born_again

I did not say "NOT USE S75"

If a chargeback is rejected, then S75 comes into play. So it is no skin off the customers nose.

So you are arguing (on a consumer rights board no less) that by the card provider having to refund customers (go work for one and you will find that they take no one to court to recover the costs) as it's not viable.
That consumers should pay more interest (which is what it will mean)

Let the trained experts decide which is the best route to recover the customers funds....

But I wonder if you could stand the 12 weeks training and on going updates as regulations change...
Just to parrot t/c :rotfl:

unholyangel

born_again wrote: »

I did not say "NOT USE S75"

If a chargeback is rejected, then S75 comes into play. So it is no skin off the customers nose.

So you are arguing (on a consumer rights board no less) that by the card provider having to refund customers (go work for one and you will find that they take no one to court to recover the costs) as it's not viable.
That consumers should pay more interest (which is what it will mean)

Let the trained experts decide which is the best route to recover the customers funds....

But I wonder if you could stand the 12 weeks training and on going updates as regulations change...
Just to parrot t/c :rotfl:

They have the right to. The fact that they don't....well again that is because they are acting in their own interest rather than their customers!

I'm sorry but....12 weeks? Are you being serious? You think 12 weeks is extensive? :eek:

born_again

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm sorry but....12 weeks? Are you being serious? You think 12 weeks is extensive? :eek:

How much training did you have?

Anyway this is not helping the OP.