Can I claim under section 75

Okydoky25

Long story short the glass in my Garden Table exploded. No reason for it, it just went pop and shattered!. I’ve only had the set a couple of months but having contacted the company I purchased it from they say it’s not covered under the warranty. I’ve asked for a copy and I’m being ignored now. I’ve quoted the Sale of goods act and still no response so I’m assuming I can claim on my credit card for faulty goods less than 6 months old or have I missed something? I paid £700 for the set.  Tia. 

eskbanker

Section 75 gives you the same rights against your card provider as you have against the merchant, so if you can make a case under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (which superseded SOGA in Great Britain) then the card provider should pick up the tab.

born_again

Claiming for faulty goods (chargeback) only covers faulty from when received. 
All you can do is ask the CC and see what they say. I think that you are going to need something like Warranty T/C or proof of a manufacturing fault. (very hard when it's in thousands of bits).

NottinghamKnight

Difficulty might be that they say you could have broken it, have you searched for any feedback on line, examples of similar defects may help. 

Sandtree

NottinghamKnight said:

Difficulty might be that they say you could have broken it, have you searched for any feedback on line, examples of similar defects may help. 

But if the item becomes faulty within 1 to 6 months it is up to the merchant to prove the items wasnt inherently faulty... so they, or the bank in its obligations under S75, need to prove the OP caused the damage rather than the OP proving it was faulty. If it was over 6 months old then the onus of proof reverts to the OP.

born_again said:

Claiming for faulty goods (chargeback) only covers faulty from when received. 
All you can do is ask the CC and see what they say. I think that you are going to need something like Warranty T/C or proof of a manufacturing fault. (very hard when it's in thousands of bits).

Not at all... firstly we are talking S75 not chargeback. Secondly the concept of inherent fault is that the item was faulty at the time of delivery just it wasnt obvious then. We've had glass walls in our offices that spontaneously shattered 5 months after being installed (CCTV confirmed eye witness that no one was close to them at the time). Testing on the remaining units (one which shattered whilst being removed) showed a defect in the manufacturing process which meant they would ultimately all have broken at somepoint when the glass could no longer take the extra strain the defect was causing.

Thankfully the CRA puts the obligation on the merchant/bank when the item is between 1 and 6 months old.

born_again

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

Claiming for faulty goods (chargeback) only covers faulty from when received. 
All you can do is ask the CC and see what they say. I think that you are going to need something like Warranty T/C or proof of a manufacturing fault. (very hard when it's in thousands of bits).

Not at all... firstly we are talking S75 not chargeback. 
Thankfully the CRA puts the obligation on the merchant/bank when the item is between 1 and 6 months old.

1st off. Card provider gets to choose the route taken to refund the customer. 
So the advice is valid.

Okydoky25

Thank you. 

After receiving no response from the company I purchased from other than to say tough they won’t doing anything I have today sent a letter and email giving them 14 days quoting Consumer Rights act 2015. 

I will contact my CC company after this of I have not had a response in this time or should I just go straight to CC anyway? 

Sandtree

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

Claiming for faulty goods (chargeback) only covers faulty from when received. 
All you can do is ask the CC and see what they say. I think that you are going to need something like Warranty T/C or proof of a manufacturing fault. (very hard when it's in thousands of bits).

Not at all... firstly we are talking S75 not chargeback. 
Thankfully the CRA puts the obligation on the merchant/bank when the item is between 1 and 6 months old.

1st off. Card provider gets to choose the route taken to refund the customer. 
So the advice is valid.

Do they? Honest question as I don't know the answer... given S75 is a statutory right where as chargeback is contractual agreement between providers I struggle with the idea that the bank can refuse to allow you to pursue your statutory rights and instead insist you follow their old boys network approach? I would be surprised if a judge were to allow a bank to deny S75 rights because the bank preferred the chargeback route.

The OPs argument in either case is still that the item was faulty, even if not apparently so, at the point of delivery and that doesn't change irrespective of its its S75 or Chargeback. Under S75 the case would be under the CRA and that puts the obligation on the merchant, or by proxy the bank, to prove it wasnt faulty. If your statement is correct and a chargeback moves the burden of proof to the OP that would be a material disadvantage which I'd be surprised would fit with the TCF principles of the FCA let alone the courts.

phillw

Sandtree said:
Do they? Honest question as I don't know the answer... given S75 is a statutory right where as chargeback is contractual agreement between providers I struggle with the idea that the bank can refuse to allow you to pursue your statutory rights and instead insist you follow their old boys network approach? I would be surprised if a judge were to allow a bank to deny S75 rights because the bank preferred the chargeback route.

But you're not in court, you're on the end of the phone to a customer service agent that you can't physically force to pay out of the banks pockets. If the bank can recover your money from the seller quicker than you'll take the bank to court then why would they?

Sandtree

phillw said:
If the bank can recover your money from the seller quicker than you'll take the bank to court then why would they?

But the point being made by Born_Again was that the bank cannot recover the money quicker by chargeback because for a chargeback its the OPs responsibility to prove the item was faulty when it was delivered whereas under S75/CRA it would be the merchant/banks responsibility.

If there was no detriment then clearly little issue with the bank choosing to take one path over the other but BA's comment was that the bank can choose a path that is materially worse for the customer.

phillw

Sandtree said:
But the point being made by Born_Again was that the bank cannot recover the money quicker by chargeback because for a chargeback its the OPs responsibility to prove the item was faulty when it was delivered whereas under S75/CRA it would be the merchant/banks responsibility.

It can't just be the instant when it was delivered, because they could argue it failed 5 minutes after delivery. So chargeback must allow some time after delivery, how long does it say?
Personally I think it's telling you can do a chargeback within 6 months, which is also the consumer rights act period for assuming it was faulty when it arrived.