SECTION 75 CHARGEBACK - REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT EXPERT

Galloform

Hi - First post. I bought a box set of three vinyl records and have noticed a fault with one record - detritus embedded in the record groove preventing playback. Unfortunately, the period for returns/ replacement with the seller has elapsed, the seller has refused to replace. I have therefore approached my credit card company to request charge back on the grounds of manufacturing fault.
The credit card company has today asked me for a report from an independent expert that the fault was caused in the manufacturing process. Is this a typical requirement in such case and is it reasonable to ask ?
The vinyl record is clearly faulty with visible detritus in the record groove. It is not suitable for use
Thanks for any advise from qualified persons 

eskbanker

You're obviously asserting that the record was in this condition when you received it but it doesn't seem unreasonable for a card company to seek confirmation of this from an independent expert, given that you're trying to hold them liable for something that they won't have any expertise in.  If your claim succeeds then you can add the cost of obtaining the report.

You mention both section 75 and chargeback but these are actually different processes, do you know which it is?  S75 has a minimum item price threshold of £100 while a chargeback claim has to be initiated within 120 days, if either of these affect your choice....

Galloform

Hi. It's outside 120 days, so it must be a section 75. The record was in this condition when I received it. Despite being outside 120 days, I opened this record for playback only on 30th April. It's white vinyl and has what looks to be pieces of black grit embedded within. Some protrude into the play groove so the stylus hits and jumps = unplayable. I have provided a clear explanation and photographs. I don't think it needs an independent expert to know that a record shouldn't have pieces of grit in it. 

Ebe_Scrooge

Galloform said:

Hi. It's outside 120 days, so it must be a section 75.

Unless the item cost £100 or more, you won't be able to initiate a S75 claim.

eskbanker

Galloform said:

Hi. It's outside 120 days, so it must be a section 75. The record was in this condition when I received it. Despite being outside 120 days, I opened this record for playback only on 30th April. It's white vinyl and has what looks to be pieces of black grit embedded within. Some protrude into the play groove so the stylus hits and jumps = unplayable. I have provided a clear explanation and photographs. I don't think it needs an independent expert to know that a record shouldn't have pieces of grit in it. 

No, but it needs an independent expert to validate your assertion that these were there when manufactured, especially if this was some time ago - it may seem obvious to you but if you're looking to hold a card company liable then they'll naturally need convincing.

Galloform

Hi, yes. It was £135.99. Three record, three cd box set with artwork. The claim is in progress, having provided everything the credit card company asked for in writing. They have replied subsequently with their additional requirement for comment by independent expert. Reason for this post was to ask those with knowledge if what is being asked of me is reasonable. I appreciate they nor I are experts in how vinyl records are made - but we do have common sense and basic knowledge of what they are and how they should perform. There should not be pieces of grit in the record groove which prevent playback.     

happy_hazelnuts

If you google a "fos section 75" you will see several articles by the fos in which they give examples of claims made by the public which have not been upheld by the credit card company and the person has gone to the fos

in general the thrust of the examples seems to be that photographic evidence is often enough and that an independent report is not necessary

eg

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/case-studies/customer-unhappy-kitchen-worktops

Ebe_Scrooge

Galloform said:

Reason for this post was to ask those with knowledge if what is being asked of me is reasonable. I appreciate they nor I are experts in how vinyl records are made - but we do have common sense and basic knowledge of what they are and how they should perform. There should not be pieces of grit in the record groove which prevent playback.     

OK, fair enough.  In that case, the answer to your question is "Yes, it's reasonable".  They are simply trying to get an expert opinion on whether it's a manufacturing fault, or whether it's wear-and-tear / neglect.  You claim it's a manufacturing fault (and I'm not disputing that), but they just need to be sure it is before they cough up for what is essentially someone else's mistake.  Asking for an expert assessment is not particularly uncommon for any form of insurance claim.

eskbanker

happy_hazelnuts said:

If you google a "fos section 75" you will see several articles by the fos in which they give examples of claims made by the public which have not been upheld by the credit card company and the person has gone to the fos

in general the thrust of the examples seems to be that photographic evidence is often enough and that an independent report is not necessary

eg

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/case-studies/customer-unhappy-kitchen-worktops

Nobody was saying that photos are never sufficient to support a s75 claim, and the example you cite is clearly one where they'd be adequate, but for something involving fine detail like this, it's not unreasonable for the card company to request an independent report.  OP could theoretically refuse to comply and hope to get a result at FOS but in such circumstances I'd be surprised if FOS ruled that the card company had no right to seek independent advice, so I think that would be a high risk strategy.

happy_hazelnuts

yes on balance i tend to agree with you, but the OP might get lucky if a close up photo shows an obvious fault. 

eskbanker

happy_hazelnuts said:

yes on balance i tend to agree with you, but the OP might get lucky if a close up photo shows an obvious fault. 

As I read it, OP had already supplied photos but the card company decided that these weren't adequate and at that point asked for the independent expert report....