Halifax, Mastercard, and Consumer Rights

mike_302

I had a long dispute about quality of a laptop purchased from one major company (won't name names here...). They stopped responding to my warranty support cases (within the first year of the warranty), and the cases remain open several months later. Therefore, I called Halifax to claim my consumer rights for the laptop. They took some background to the case, and gave me a credit for the purchase amount. They said they'd go to the laptop company and try to get a response directly. If nothing happened in 45 days, they said the credit would be permanent.
I'm here asking a couple things:
1. Is the credit indeed permanent after 45 days? Days-days, or business days? I couldn't find assurance on this on Halifax's policies. I'm hesitant to call them back as I'm superstitious enough to be worried it will trigger something (on day 33 now; no response from the laptop manufacturer).
2. I just read the MSE article on Chargeback vs Section 75. I don't know which of these routes went ahead, and am wondering what the implications are for the chargeback process? I did originally ask the agent on the phone when I made the claim; I stated that I had previously initiated a Section 75, and wanted to restart that process, and she just started taking information and I don't think I had an explicit statement, "this is a section 75 process" or "this is a chargeback, not a section 75". The previous time I started a Section 75 process, Halifax sent me a letter asking me to confirm I was happy to start that process. I didn't follow-up originally because the manufacturer started to get serious about resolving the problem (within 3 months of the purchase) and continued to engage for a while. I noted that the process was much simpler this time, involving just a 20 minute call, and an immediate credit, starting a 45 day timer. The agent on the phone said that they had recently simplified their processes for this kind of thing.
When the 45 days are up, I'll be outside the 1-year warranty period anyways.

neilmcl

It's 45 days period. Also, you haven't said whether it was a debit or credit card and the total amount involved.

unholyangel

It's a chargeback they've done. Chargeback your bank ask the traders bank for your money back and the trader has 45 days to dispute.

S75 you're claiming against your own bank. 

Banks often do chargebacks even when customers ask for a s75. The cynic in me says it's because of the above (s75 being against them rather than the trader), which they shouldn't do. But it could also be that the bank staff aren't made aware of s75 claims

Were_Doomed

unholyangel said:

The cynic in me says it's because of the above (s75 being against them rather than the trader), which they shouldn't do. But it could also be that the bank staff aren't made aware of s75 claims

Given that S75 has been around for at least 45 years then ignorance of it (within the banking/finance system) cannot be a reasonable excuse. Therefore lack of knowledge by staff will be a deliberate training deficiency by management, so as to try and direct S75 claims down the chargeback route as often as possible. (IMHO)

born_again

Were_Doomed said:

unholyangel said:

The cynic in me says it's because of the above (s75 being against them rather than the trader), which they shouldn't do. But it could also be that the bank staff aren't made aware of s75 claims

Given that S75 has been around for at least 45 years then ignorance of it (within the banking/finance system) cannot be a reasonable excuse. Therefore lack of knowledge by staff will be a deliberate training deficiency by management, so as to try and direct S75 claims down the chargeback route as often as possible. (IMHO)

Some cynics around 😉
Why should a bank (ie that you and me in the long run) pay out for something that is not their fault and let the retailer get away scot free?

A chargeback is 45 days from when its started. (Not business or working days) plain and simple Days. So if they quoted that timeframe, it will be a chargeback. As a S75 claim has not timescale. They take as long as they take. And this can be many months on complex cases. Even known some go over a year as they are escalated up the structure till they find someone that has the authority to approve the payout.
You may have to wait longer than the 45 days for total surety that the retailer has not contested. As no bank has the staff to monitor the rejections within the timeframes due to the vast number of chargebacks made. 

unholyangel

born_again said:

Were_Doomed said:

unholyangel said:

The cynic in me says it's because of the above (s75 being against them rather than the trader), which they shouldn't do. But it could also be that the bank staff aren't made aware of s75 claims

Given that S75 has been around for at least 45 years then ignorance of it (within the banking/finance system) cannot be a reasonable excuse. Therefore lack of knowledge by staff will be a deliberate training deficiency by management, so as to try and direct S75 claims down the chargeback route as often as possible. (IMHO)

Some cynics around 😉
Why should a bank (ie that you and me in the long run) pay out for something that is not their fault and let the retailer get away scot free?

S75 also provides an indemnity for the creditor. That they can recover any sums paid out for a s75 claim, from the trader. 

So if the trader is getting away scot free, it's because the creditor is allowing it. 

mike_302

All interesting and helpful. I'll keep my fingers crossed for a couple more weeks. The manufacturer has been useless and disorganised in terms of customer service. With any luck they'll be useless and disorganised with respect to responding on time, and I'll get my money back without further hassle. The stupid laptop was replaced once already, and numerous other people have faced the same or similar problems (according to online accounts). I'm tired of the manufacturer ignoring it; but if they will, hopefully they ignore the charge back too! 

born_again

unholyangel said:

born_again said:

Were_Doomed said:

unholyangel said:

The cynic in me says it's because of the above (s75 being against them rather than the trader), which they shouldn't do. But it could also be that the bank staff aren't made aware of s75 claims

Given that S75 has been around for at least 45 years then ignorance of it (within the banking/finance system) cannot be a reasonable excuse. Therefore lack of knowledge by staff will be a deliberate training deficiency by management, so as to try and direct S75 claims down the chargeback route as often as possible. (IMHO)

Some cynics around 😉
Why should a bank (ie that you and me in the long run) pay out for something that is not their fault and let the retailer get away scot free?

S75 also provides an indemnity for the creditor. That they can recover any sums paid out for a s75 claim, from the trader. 

So if the trader is getting away scot free, it's because the creditor is allowing it. 

The issue from claiming from the retailer is the legal costs. No small claims court available..

Just think how much a barrister would cost to take the above to court to reclaim the funds. Then do you think the judge would award costs to the bank? Not a chance.

Were_Doomed

Why is the small claims route not available? To my knowledge it does not preclude B2B claims.

born_again

Were_Doomed said:

Why is the small claims route not available? To my knowledge it does not preclude B2B claims.

Could be wrong on that, but there would still be the legal staff costs, as banks do not employ people to do that type of work. It is simply not cost effective.

wealdroam

born_again said:

Were_Doomed said:

Why is the small claims route not available? To my knowledge it does not preclude B2B claims.

Could be wrong on that, but there would still be the legal staff costs, as banks do not employ people to do that type of work. It is simply not cost effective.

Legal costs are strictly limited in a Small Claims environment.
Typically, each party bears their own costs unless the other party has behaved unreasonably.