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

born_again

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

I do still have the sofa, so the company collecting it, is it not a probelm. I did ask for a refund and wanted to return it, which was when I was told to 'buy new legs', but I don't think a sofa should have defects like this after 3 months.

The retailer is a small furniture shop in South Wales, they have terrible reviews, pity I didn't see these before!

The only people that can confirm that are your card provider.
Given that the company are chasing you for the funds. I would lay odds on it being a chargeback & they did not contest it. So they lost the money.

A dirty fix for the sofa, would be to put a larger piece of decent wood on the bottom, fixed over a large area & then fix the feet to that. 
Chipboard is never going to work in that situation, especially if the sofa keeps getting moved.

viksviks84

born_again said:

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

I do still have the sofa, so the company collecting it, is it not a probelm. I did ask for a refund and wanted to return it, which was when I was told to 'buy new legs', but I don't think a sofa should have defects like this after 3 months.

The retailer is a small furniture shop in South Wales, they have terrible reviews, pity I didn't see these before!

The only people that can confirm that are your card provider.
Given that the company are chasing you for the funds. I would lay odds on it being a chargeback & they did not contest it. So they lost the money.

A dirty fix for the sofa, would be to put a larger piece of decent wood on the bottom, fixed over a large area & then fix the feet to that. 
Chipboard is never going to work in that situation, especially if the sofa keeps getting moved.

Thanks for your comments. 

I will be speaking to the credit card company, I requested a S75, whether it was processed as a S75 I'm not sure, but I think this is absolutely my first thing to find out.

On my statement the refund was a 'Mastercard Cardholder Adjustment'.

Manxman_in_exile

If the sofa is faulty enough to reject, why should the OP attempt any repair - "dirty" or not?

If it isn't faulty enough, why did the bank do a chargeback from the retailer's own funds leaving the OP vulnerable to be sued? Do banks just process chargebacks willy-nilly without any consideration of a claim's merits? If that is the case then the bank has done an even greater dis-service to their customer by putting them in a worse situation.

I know banks don't give a fig for their customers but that's terrible!

viksviks84

TELLIT01 said:

The base seems to be made from poor quality chipboard so whatever you screw into it is likely to break away again.  I don't think any repairs should become the responsibility of the purchaser.  The goods are faulty, the card provider agreed and refunded.  It should be the responsibility of the retailer to collect the item.  Depending on where the OP lives in relation to the retailer it might be worth just getting a man with a van and returning it themselves.

Thanks for this, it is a thought, I think I'm loathed to spend the money hiring a van though! Also, should I just leave it outside in the elements? I'm just wondering if I'd be doing something else wrong if I did that! Distruction of stolen property maybe 😉🤔

viksviks84

ThumbRemote said:

glennevis said:

The shop suggested you buy new wooden feet so I think they should reimburse you for them.
If you are not a DIYer, pay a joiner to fit wooden feet and invoice you. Pay the joiner's invoice and get the joiner to stamp it 'paid'.
Then send the shop a cheque for the original cost, deducting the cost of the joiner's invoice. Explain in the covering letter why you have deducted the cost of fitting replacement feet.

This is an absolutely terrible idea, and would massively muddy the waters. The sofa is faulty, and terrible quality, do not under any circumstances go back on the progress you've already made and pay for it again! That would be an utterly ridiculous thing to do. You'd end up with no support from the shop OR the card company next time anything goes wrong with it. 

Simply contact the retailer and tell them you have not stolen the sofa, instead it is available for them to collect. Provide contact details so they can arrange a time. 

If they contact you and collect it, job done, everything sorted. 
If they don't contact you, leave it a month or so then proactively write to them to remind them that it is available for them to collect. This just demonstrates you've tried to sort it out with them. 

Or, as TELLIT01 says above, use a van and drop it off at the shop. A bit more effort, but you know it's done and the matter is closed. 

Thank you for commenting, I'm so grateful for your suggestions 🙂

viksviks84

user1977 said:

Admit to the terrible crime of stealing the knackered sofa, and ask the shop to get the police to collect the evidence. 

This might be my favourite suggestion yet! 😂  My only concern from some other comments, is that the owner is very threatening and they know where I live, crazy that I'm even feeling like this, if I bought it from SCS I would worry about them 'sending the boys around' 

viksviks84

Manxman_in_exile said:

TELLIT01 said:

The base seems to be made from poor quality chipboard so whatever you screw into it is likely to break away again.  I don't think any repairs should become the responsibility of the purchaser.  The goods are faulty, the card provider agreed and refunded.  It should be the responsibility of the retailer to collect the item.  Depending on where the OP lives in relation to the retailer it might be worth just getting a man with a van and returning it themselves.

sheramber said:

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

Credit card can be chargeback or S75.

Debit card is chargeback only.

I think that if the OP made it clear to his bank/cc provider that he was making a s75 claim against the retailer (not a chargeback) and the bank did not do so, then he should be making a formal complaint to the bank.  The whole point of s75 is to give the consumer statutory protection and to make the finance provider jointly and severally liable with the retailer.  The bank/cc provider cannot be allowed to pick and choose a remedy which affords the consumer a lower level of protection (ie allowing the retailer to threaten to sue the consumer to get their money back after the bank has charged them back) than statute does.  The bank isn't allowed to limit or restrict statutory consumer rights, and if I were the OP I'd be complaining immediately on these grounds.

If the sofa was delivered by the shop to the OP, then the OP simply needs to let them know again that it is available for the shop to collect.   If the OP picked it up from the shop itself, he needs to return it to them. (I certainly would not hire a man in a van to do so if the shop had delivered it -  the OP simply makes it available for collection than it's up to the shop).

In the highly unlikely event that the OP is sued by the shop, then the OP simply defends the claim on the grounds that the sofa was faulty and that after being refunded by their bank they have made every attempt to get the shop to collect the defective goods but they have failed to do so.  I don't see how he can lose - but if he does lose I would be making a formal complaint to the bank and to the FOS.  If the sofa is faulty but the OP loses on some other ground, he should make a s75 claim against the bank!

If the sofa is faulty all this talk about the OP getting replacement feet or legs of eBay and fitting them himself is defeatist nonsense and utterly useless advice.

(NB - all the above assumes the sofa is sufficiently faulty to warrant rejection / a s75 claim - whether it is or not, I don't know).

I may very well make a complaint to the credit card company, once I clarify whether they actioned a chargeback or a S75 as per my request. 

Thanks for your comments, very thorough and great for me to know. 

viksviks84

This is the reply I had, although it doesn't really clarify if it was a S75 or chargeback. I may have to phone them tomorrow.

I can't thank you all enough for your comments, suggestions and support. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Outside the 30 day short term right to reject it is assumed that the goods did not conform to the contract if raised within 6 months, unless demonstrated otherwise, and trader must offer a remedy of repair, replace or refund.

If the trader fails to adhere to the consumer's request for a repair or replacement the consumer may exercise their final right to reject. With the trader failing to accept this but instead telling the consumer to repair themselves and the consumer seeking a refund from the card provider the only issue is the collection of goods. 

Simply advising the retailer they are to collect the goods or make arrangements to cover the cost of return should be sufficient to resolve the matter.

If the company fails to do so I can't see what their case is going to be.

Might be worth reminding the company of the below: 

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23/enacted

(1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

(3)The consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy (the repair or the replacement)—

(a)is impossible, or

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

(4)Either of those remedies is disproportionate compared to the other if it imposes costs on the trader which, compared to those imposed by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24/enacted

(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—

(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

(b)because of section 23(3) the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or

(c)the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/enacted

(7)From the time when the right is exercised—

(a)the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and

(b)the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

(8)Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of the goods

ItsComingRome

Manxman_in_exile said:

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

TELLIT01 said:

The base seems to be made from poor quality chipboard so whatever you screw into it is likely to break away again.  I don't think any repairs should become the responsibility of the purchaser.  The goods are faulty, the card provider agreed and refunded.  It should be the responsibility of the retailer to collect the item.  Depending on where the OP lives in relation to the retailer it might be worth just getting a man with a van and returning it themselves.

sheramber said:

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

Credit card can be chargeback or S75.

Debit card is chargeback only.

I think that if the OP made it clear to his bank/cc provider that he was making a s75 claim against the retailer (not a chargeback) and the bank did not do so, then he should be making a formal complaint to the bank.  The whole point of s75 is to give the consumer statutory protection and to make the finance provider jointly and severally liable with the retailer.  The bank/cc provider cannot be allowed to pick and choose a remedy which affords the consumer a lower level of protection (ie allowing the retailer to threaten to sue the consumer to get their money back after the bank has charged them back) than statute does.  The bank isn't allowed to limit or restrict statutory consumer rights, and if I were the OP I'd be complaining immediately on these grounds.

If the sofa was delivered by the shop to the OP, then the OP simply needs to let them know again that it is available for the shop to collect.   If the OP picked it up from the shop itself, he needs to return it to them. (I certainly would not hire a man in a van to do so if the shop had delivered it -  the OP simply makes it available for collection than it's up to the shop).

In the highly unlikely event that the OP is sued by the shop, then the OP simply defends the claim on the grounds that the sofa was faulty and that after being refunded by their bank they have made every attempt to get the shop to collect the defective goods but they have failed to do so.  I don't see how he can lose - but if he does lose I would be making a formal complaint to the bank and to the FOS.  If the sofa is faulty but the OP loses on some other ground, he should make a s75 claim against the bank!

If the sofa is faulty all this talk about the OP getting replacement feet or legs of eBay and fitting them himself is defeatist nonsense and utterly useless advice.

(NB - all the above assumes the sofa is sufficiently faulty to warrant rejection / a s75 claim - whether it is or not, I don't know).

There is no point in pursuing the bank. The OP got their money back, which is what they wanted.  They can't insist on an S75 if the situation has been remedied under the chargeback scheme.

Why not? 

The OP did not get what they want because the retailer is threatening to sue them.  (Whether or not the retailer actually has a case is irrelevant to my point -  his bank should not have put the OP in this position).

s75 is a statutory consumer right whereas a chargeback is, as I understand it, some kind of voluntary inter-bank agreement which is dependent on the terms of that agreement, and is not a legal "right" for the consumer.  Indeed a chargeback - as in this situation - gives the consumer a lower level of protection because it is always open to the retailer to sue the consumer after being charged back.  (Indeed I'm pretty sure you've made that point yourself in another thread - although it may have been somebody else like y3sitsm3 or p3ncilsharp3n3er).  The consumer won't be sued after a s75 claim because they've already won the claim.

I further understand that banks very much have a financial interest in pursuing a chargeback rather than a s75 claim. With a chargeback they are refunding money from the retailer and not from their own funds (this has been explained here by someone who appears to have inside knowledge of how it works) but unlike a s75 claim, a chargeback leaves the consumer open to further action from the retailer.

The bank is clearly and blatantly evading the intent Paliament had in passing s75 of the CCA (indeed I'd go further and say that by ignoring a clear request for a s75 claim and instead processing a non-stautory chargeback, they are clearly breaking the letter of the law) and I'd suggest they can't lawfully do that.  I suspect banks thought up chargeback as a "clever" wheeze for evading their responsibilities under the law and passing costs back to the retailer while dressing it up as them being kind and generous to their customers.  And of course they advertise it as such but fail to mention that chargeback does not offer the same level of protection to their customers as they already have under statute.

Presumably you would disagree?

[EDIT:  I'm assuming the OP clearly requested a s75 claim - they haven't confirmed if they did or not]

The OP got their money back, which is what they wanted.

They can't insist on an S75 claim now, as they have their money back.  There is no longer anything to "claim" for.