Credit card company refunded under s75, now the retailer is wanting me to pay them back

viksviks84

user1977 said:

viksviks84 said:

pinkshoes said:

viksviks84 said:

Quick update, the credit company basically said the retailer has a weak legal case, as they had 45 days to counter, which they didn't and to contact Citizens Advice for more information. 
The retailer messaged me Thursday and again Friday, which ended up with them telling me they were raising a money claim against me for goods received not paid for.
I wanted to stick to my guns, but I caved and paid, you can't put a price on peace of mind.
Thanks for all your support and help, it was greatly appreciate.
At least I now know the difference between a S75 and Chargeback, and sometimes you get better aftercare with the bigger stores. 

But why did you pay them?!?! !!!!!! stand up to bully tactics! ARGH! 

They have NO legal case against you. The sofa was faulty and you made it available for them to collect. If it actually got as far as court (it wouldn't), you just need to show that the sofa was available to collect and they had not done so.

Can you be 100% sure though that I'd win? If I didn't, I'd have to pay more than the cost of the sofa by the time they add on fees and interest.

What makes you think they would be entitled to add on fees and interest?

I looked on the money claim website and they can add the fees and interest on

Manxman_in_exile

viksviks84 said:

Quick update, the credit company basically said the retailer has a weak legal case, as they had 45 days to counter, which they didn't and to contact Citizens Advice for more information. 
The retailer messaged me Thursday and again Friday, which ended up with them telling me they were raising a money claim against me for goods received not paid for.
I wanted to stick to my guns, but I caved and paid, you can't put a price on peace of mind.
Thanks for all your support and help, it was greatly appreciate.
At least I now know the difference between a S75 and Chargeback, and sometimes you get better aftercare with the bigger stores. 

You have my sympathy as I can fully understand why you would prefer to have peace of mind and a quiet life rather than the stress and hassle of dealing with threats to sue you - whether those threats are empty or not.

I'm sure you've done the same as many people would have done in your situation.  You made what you thought was a s75 claim (it's in the thread title) but your bank didn't make it clear to you that they were actually processing a chargeback which - unlike a s75 claim - leaves you open to being sued by the retailer afterwards to get their money back from you.  Your bank has processed your claim in such a way that they are putting their interests before yours by not treating it as statutory consumer right - which is what you thought you were asking for.  

This is why I think banks etc should be much more open with their customers about the differences between chargebacks and s75 claims.  A difference you now understand, but it's cost you to get that knowledge.  Your bank should be explaining it for free.

Best advice is to put this behind you, but don't forget the lesson if you find yourself in a similar situation.

RandomUserID

Manxman_in_exile said:

viksviks84 said:

Quick update, the credit company basically said the retailer has a weak legal case, as they had 45 days to counter, which they didn't and to contact Citizens Advice for more information. 
The retailer messaged me Thursday and again Friday, which ended up with them telling me they were raising a money claim against me for goods received not paid for.
I wanted to stick to my guns, but I caved and paid, you can't put a price on peace of mind.
Thanks for all your support and help, it was greatly appreciate.
At least I now know the difference between a S75 and Chargeback, and sometimes you get better aftercare with the bigger stores. 

You have my sympathy as I can fully understand why you would prefer to have peace of mind and a quiet life rather than the stress and hassle of dealing with threats to sue you - whether those threats are empty or not.

I'm sure you've done the same as many people would have done in your situation.  You made what you thought was a s75 claim (it's in the thread title) but your bank didn't make it clear to you that they were actually processing a chargeback which - unlike a s75 claim - leaves you open to being sued by the retailer afterwards to get their money back from you.  Your bank has processed your claim in such a way that they are putting their interests before yours by not treating it as statutory consumer right - which is what you thought you were asking for.  

This is why I think banks etc should be much more open with their customers about the differences between chargebacks and s75 claims.  A difference you now understand, but it's cost you to get that knowledge.  Your bank should be explaining it for free.

Best advice is to put this behind you, but don't forget the lesson if you find yourself in a similar situation.

Stop it.

The OP had no idea what either of those terms were. They were not misled and they had no choice anyway, the bank was within its rights to raise a chargeback first as a way of dealing with an S75 claim.

You can't insist on the bank footing the bill if a chargeback fulfils your consumer rights.

viksviks84

RandomUserID said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

viksviks84 said:

Quick update, the credit company basically said the retailer has a weak legal case, as they had 45 days to counter, which they didn't and to contact Citizens Advice for more information. 
The retailer messaged me Thursday and again Friday, which ended up with them telling me they were raising a money claim against me for goods received not paid for.
I wanted to stick to my guns, but I caved and paid, you can't put a price on peace of mind.
Thanks for all your support and help, it was greatly appreciate.
At least I now know the difference between a S75 and Chargeback, and sometimes you get better aftercare with the bigger stores. 

You have my sympathy as I can fully understand why you would prefer to have peace of mind and a quiet life rather than the stress and hassle of dealing with threats to sue you - whether those threats are empty or not.

I'm sure you've done the same as many people would have done in your situation.  You made what you thought was a s75 claim (it's in the thread title) but your bank didn't make it clear to you that they were actually processing a chargeback which - unlike a s75 claim - leaves you open to being sued by the retailer afterwards to get their money back from you.  Your bank has processed your claim in such a way that they are putting their interests before yours by not treating it as statutory consumer right - which is what you thought you were asking for.  

This is why I think banks etc should be much more open with their customers about the differences between chargebacks and s75 claims.  A difference you now understand, but it's cost you to get that knowledge.  Your bank should be explaining it for free.

Best advice is to put this behind you, but don't forget the lesson if you find yourself in a similar situation.

Stop it.

The OP had no idea what either of those terms were. They were not misled and they had no choice anyway, the bank was within its rights to raise a chargeback first as a way of dealing with an S75 claim.

You can't insist on the bank footing the bill if a chargeback fulfils your consumer rights.

I knew what a S75 was, I didn't know (at the time) chargeback was possible for a credit card. 

Manxman_in_exile

viksviks84 said:

RandomUserID said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

viksviks84 said:

Quick update, the credit company basically said the retailer has a weak legal case, as they had 45 days to counter, which they didn't and to contact Citizens Advice for more information. 
The retailer messaged me Thursday and again Friday, which ended up with them telling me they were raising a money claim against me for goods received not paid for.
I wanted to stick to my guns, but I caved and paid, you can't put a price on peace of mind.
Thanks for all your support and help, it was greatly appreciate.
At least I now know the difference between a S75 and Chargeback, and sometimes you get better aftercare with the bigger stores. 

You have my sympathy as I can fully understand why you would prefer to have peace of mind and a quiet life rather than the stress and hassle of dealing with threats to sue you - whether those threats are empty or not.

I'm sure you've done the same as many people would have done in your situation.  You made what you thought was a s75 claim (it's in the thread title) but your bank didn't make it clear to you that they were actually processing a chargeback which - unlike a s75 claim - leaves you open to being sued by the retailer afterwards to get their money back from you.  Your bank has processed your claim in such a way that they are putting their interests before yours by not treating it as statutory consumer right - which is what you thought you were asking for.  

This is why I think banks etc should be much more open with their customers about the differences between chargebacks and s75 claims.  A difference you now understand, but it's cost you to get that knowledge.  Your bank should be explaining it for free.

Best advice is to put this behind you, but don't forget the lesson if you find yourself in a similar situation.

Stop it.

The OP had no idea what either of those terms were. They were not misled and they had no choice anyway, the bank was within its rights to raise a chargeback first as a way of dealing with an S75 claim.

You can't insist on the bank footing the bill if a chargeback fulfils your consumer rights.

I knew what a S75 was, I didn't know (at the time) chargeback was possible for a credit card. 

Don't worry.  It's been quite obvious from the start of this thread that you knew what a s75 claim was but that you didn't realise that your bank had started a chargeback instead - without informing you that that was what they were doing - which I think they should have done.

However, as you now realise, some posters - like RandomUserID - are just apologists for the banking industry believing that it was none of your business to be told the difference, and that you should be quite content just to get your money back and then have to deal with threatening letters from the retailer to sue you.  (Do you remember the poster named ItsComingRome who clearly stated that the chargeback had given you everything that you wanted and I challenged them to ask you if you wanted to be threatened with being sued?  Where are they now?  Check their profile.)

You might also want to check this thread regarding how helpful RandomUserID's contributions are (HSBC Aspects — MoneySavingExpert Forum )  

Money_Grabber13579

Manxman_in_exile said:

viksviks84 said:

RandomUserID said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

viksviks84 said:

Quick update, the credit company basically said the retailer has a weak legal case, as they had 45 days to counter, which they didn't and to contact Citizens Advice for more information. 
The retailer messaged me Thursday and again Friday, which ended up with them telling me they were raising a money claim against me for goods received not paid for.
I wanted to stick to my guns, but I caved and paid, you can't put a price on peace of mind.
Thanks for all your support and help, it was greatly appreciate.
At least I now know the difference between a S75 and Chargeback, and sometimes you get better aftercare with the bigger stores. 

You have my sympathy as I can fully understand why you would prefer to have peace of mind and a quiet life rather than the stress and hassle of dealing with threats to sue you - whether those threats are empty or not.

I'm sure you've done the same as many people would have done in your situation.  You made what you thought was a s75 claim (it's in the thread title) but your bank didn't make it clear to you that they were actually processing a chargeback which - unlike a s75 claim - leaves you open to being sued by the retailer afterwards to get their money back from you.  Your bank has processed your claim in such a way that they are putting their interests before yours by not treating it as statutory consumer right - which is what you thought you were asking for.  

This is why I think banks etc should be much more open with their customers about the differences between chargebacks and s75 claims.  A difference you now understand, but it's cost you to get that knowledge.  Your bank should be explaining it for free.

Best advice is to put this behind you, but don't forget the lesson if you find yourself in a similar situation.

Stop it.

The OP had no idea what either of those terms were. They were not misled and they had no choice anyway, the bank was within its rights to raise a chargeback first as a way of dealing with an S75 claim.

You can't insist on the bank footing the bill if a chargeback fulfils your consumer rights.

I knew what a S75 was, I didn't know (at the time) chargeback was possible for a credit card. 

Don't worry.  It's been quite obvious from the start of this thread that you knew what a s75 claim was but that you didn't realise that your bank had started a chargeback instead - without informing you that that was what they were doing - which I think they should have done.

However, as you now realise, some posters - like RandomUserID - are just apologists for the banking industry believing that it was none of your business to be told the difference, and that you should be quite content just to get your money back and then have to deal with threatening letters from the retailer to sue you.  (Do you remember the poster named ItsComingRome who clearly stated that the chargeback had given you everything that you wanted and I challenged them to ask you if you wanted to be threatened with being sued?  Where are they now?  Check their profile.)

You might also want to check this thread regarding how helpful RandomUserID's contributions are (HSBC Aspects — MoneySavingExpert Forum )  

Always amazes me how little some people must have to do in their lives if all they can do is antagonise people on an Internet forum and when they get banned for it, create a new user account and repeat. We’ve seen ThisnotThat, ItsComingRome and now RandomUserID…based on the pattern, the next user account will already have been created.

Sandtree

viksviks84 said:

user1977 said:

viksviks84 said:

pinkshoes said:

viksviks84 said:

Quick update, the credit company basically said the retailer has a weak legal case, as they had 45 days to counter, which they didn't and to contact Citizens Advice for more information. 
The retailer messaged me Thursday and again Friday, which ended up with them telling me they were raising a money claim against me for goods received not paid for.
I wanted to stick to my guns, but I caved and paid, you can't put a price on peace of mind.
Thanks for all your support and help, it was greatly appreciate.
At least I now know the difference between a S75 and Chargeback, and sometimes you get better aftercare with the bigger stores. 

But why did you pay them?!?! !!!!!! stand up to bully tactics! ARGH! 

They have NO legal case against you. The sofa was faulty and you made it available for them to collect. If it actually got as far as court (it wouldn't), you just need to show that the sofa was available to collect and they had not done so.

Can you be 100% sure though that I'd win? If I didn't, I'd have to pay more than the cost of the sofa by the time they add on fees and interest.

What makes you think they would be entitled to add on fees and interest?

I looked on the money claim website and they can add the fees and interest on

They can ask that they be considered... ultimately the judge decides if they are awarded. Court costs normally are, unless there is an abuse of process. Interest commonly is but what date the interest starts from is more commonly adjusted

MarvinDay

RandomUserID said:

Stop it.

The OP had no idea what either of those terms were. They were not misled and they had no choice anyway, the bank was within its rights to raise a chargeback first as a way of dealing with an S75 claim.

You can't insist on the bank footing the bill if a chargeback fulfils your consumer rights.

Totally and utterly wrong.
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit act gives consumers statutory rights (rights that are written into and enshrined in law) and as such, the bank has no legal right to decline a S75 claim in favour of a chargeback.
I would go further and state that provided the claim was eligible for S75 then by doing what they have done, the bank were committing a criminal offence by refusing to instigate that claim and processing it as a chargeback instead.

Sandtree

MarvinDay said:

RandomUserID said:

Stop it.

The OP had no idea what either of those terms were. They were not misled and they had no choice anyway, the bank was within its rights to raise a chargeback first as a way of dealing with an S75 claim.

You can't insist on the bank footing the bill if a chargeback fulfils your consumer rights.

Totally and utterly wrong.
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit act gives consumers statutory rights (rights that are written into and enshrined in law) and as such, the bank has no legal right to decline a S75 claim in favour of a chargeback.
I would go further and state that provided the claim was eligible for S75 then by doing what they have done, the bank were committing a criminal offence by refusing to instigate that claim and processing it as a chargeback instead.

The OP already confirmed they "raised a dispute" using a web form and didnt "ask for a S75" as originally stated... they said they didnt know chargebacks existed for CCs so assumed it was a S75 that'd happen by filling in the form

MarvinDay

Sandtree said:

The OP already confirmed they "raised a dispute" using a web form and didnt "ask for a S75" as originally stated... they said they didnt know chargebacks existed for CCs so assumed it was a S75 that'd happen by filling in the form

I realise that, I was simply replying to the comment that incorrectly stated that a bank can ignore a consumers S75 claim and opt for a chargeback instead.

RandomUserID said:

 the bank was within its rights to raise a chargeback first as a way of dealing with an S75 claim.