Chargeback/Section 75

SevenOfNine

I understand the Section 75, & have used my c/c for £100 deposit, 3 additional payments by direct debit and a 4th (final) payment by c/c. 

I don't really understand how a Chargeback might fit that scenario.  I used to think it could only be used if d/c was used for payment, but it appears it CAN be used for c/c purchases as well.  I get that it differs legally etc but just wondering if it would recover the 3 d/d payments as well, like a S75 would?

colsten

As long as you paid at least £100.01 of a given purchase by Credit Card, you are covered under Scetion 75. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases/

digalumps

You amount you have paid from your credit card 

colsten

digalumps said:

You amount you have paid from your credit card 

Not quite. Read the MSE article.

eskbanker

OP is asking about chargeback, as opposed to s75, so the answer is that it's only the amount(s) paid by card: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

colsten

I didn't read the OP properly, and on re-reading, I admit I don't fully understand what it's about, aside from various payments having been made with various methods, and now wanting money back. But why would you not use Section 75 if you only paid part by CC?

EssexExile

The question appears to be "Does chargeback work for money not paid by card, like S75 does as long as you pay part by card?"

eskbanker

colsten said:

I didn't read the OP properly, and on re-reading, I admit I don't fully understand what it's about, aside from various payments having been made with various methods, and now wanting money back. But why would you not use Section 75 if you only paid part by CC?

I think that was the point of the question - OP was asking if chargeback covers as much of the transaction as s75 does, and, having now seen the answer ("no"), will undoubtedly conclude that s75 is the better route for their transaction, with its different payment methods.

However, at least one bank employee posting on here has pointed out that chargeback is often a quicker and more straightforward process for the customer, if everything else is equal, despite the MSE party line appearing to favour s75 as a matter of course....

SevenOfNine

Thanks everyone.

It's more learning about options. Section 75s are being rejected because tour operators are offering Refund Credit Notes, which can 'eventually' be swapped for cash refunds. Can't blame c/c providers for that I suppose, tour operators seem happy to break the law on ££££, until legally challenged anyway!

Recently on the show a couple of weeks ago, Martin Lewis said chargebacks are a better choice because the card provider reverses the transaction, & not held equally as responsible for the failure to supply.

Having just typed out the para above, common sense should have indicated that it would be TRANSACTION paid with the card not including other separate methods lumped in as well! Sadly my common sense was sadly lacking this morning, but thank you for taking the time to reply.

digalumps

yes sorry  i wasn't clear but as the op mentioned chargeback I replied that only the amount spent on the CC can be charged back ie not the dd amount.

S75 is different of course in that the CC are jointly and severally liable and the whole lot can be claimed. 

Anna_Belle

My problem is that I filed a Section 75, but credit card provider has lumped it in with chargeback, saying both are the same, which isn't correct. Airline Emirates, challenged chargeback. Bank found the challenge invalid. The airline didn't address the issue. (The service was not provided Mastercard Reason Code 4855 and the airline couldn't prove it was, as they cancelled all flights). I thought I should get my refund then, as the airline failed in their challenge.  Instead, Sainsbury's Bank filed a second chargeback, (pre-arbitration), with new evidence they say, but don't say what that is, and filed it without consulting me. I tell them none of this should be my problem I filed a Section 75, which means they are jointly and severally liable.  Anyone help please.