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

ItsComingRome

viksviks84 said:

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. 

It does clarify that it was a chargeback.

There is no option to "contest" an S75 claim.

sheramber

viksviks84 said:

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. 

As they say the money was taken back from the retailer that is a chargeback. 

MalMonroe

I did a section 75 around five years ago, bought a faulty old car (Renault Clio) and eventually got my money back, plus compensation - AND I kept the old car as well. I traded it in for a better car. And I wasn't asked to return it or pay for it either. My case was escalated to, and agreed by, the Financial Ombudsman so I'm not sure if that made any difference. Or if the car dealer was just fed up with the whole thing.

However, I realise that that's not always the case. 

What I'd do in here is write to the company and tell them to contact you to arrange collection of their faulty goods. 

Don't let their threats put you off. You haven't stolen anything, they are just miffed that your Section 75 action was successful and they don't want their damaged goods back. If you offer to return them (why should you pay for that though when they supplied and delivered faulty items?) in writing, they don't really have any argument, do they?

If it does go to court, then you will be seen as being the reasonable party while they are being unnecessarily difficult. 

Grumpy_chap

MalMonroe said:

I did a section 75 around five years ago, bought a faulty old car (Renault Clio) and eventually got my money back, plus compensation - AND I kept the old car as well.

That is a truly remarkable outcome!

In any case, the OP's complaint was processed as "chargeback" and not S75.  That may not be what the OP requested, but that is what happened.

Irrespective, even under S75, the finance company is entitled to the goods returned and, if the goods have any value, they have a duty of care to their stakeholders to recover the goods.  Particularly a car which has scrap value minimum.  Even if the goods have no value, in the majority of cases, the supplier or finance company (whoever is funding the payment back to consumer) will want  the goods back otherwise the whole process is too open to abuse.  The exception would be items of a truly nominal value.

viksviks84

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!

It is a terrible situation to put a customer in, isn't it, I'll certainly be asking this question and if necessary taking it further. 

ItsComingRome

viksviks84 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!

It is a terrible situation to put a customer in, isn't it, I'll certainly be asking this question and if necessary taking it further. 

Not really.  The usual process is you make a complaint, the retailer counters (if they can) and the bank makes a decision based on the evidence.

The banks aren't interested in consumer rights, per se, only what the chargeback regulations say.  Unless there is clearly no valid claim under the chargeback rules it will be processed and it is up to the retailer to counter this.

In this case, the retailer sat on their hands and did nothing, hence the, for want of a better term, "default judgement."

If you want to sort this out either offer most of the money back, less an amount to repair the goods, or offer them an amount back for the usage you've had and offer the goods up for collection.

The FOS can't, and won't, force the banks to refund you out of their own pockets. S75 doesn't specify where a refund has to come from, so a complaint on this basis is a non-starter.

Manxman_in_exile

ItsComingRome said:

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.

The OP quite clearly did not get what they wanted.

What the OP wanted was to get their money back and for that to be the end of the matter.  Instead what they got was their money back together with something far less welcome too - threats to sue them from the retailer.

That is because the bank evaded their responsibility to their client under s75 and instead processed a chargeback which - as we all know - leaves the OP vulnerable to being sued by the retailer trying to get their money back.  And of course the bank processes a chargeback rather than a s75 not because it is in their customer's interrest, but because it is in the bank's own interest.

You can see the lack of respect the bank has for their customer in the response above where they disingenuously say "... there is no record of them submitting a counterclaim to this in the time since and we are currently outside the 45 day window in which they can do that. ...but it would appear they are currently unable to claim back the amount credited on that date at this stage".

That is clearly designed to mislead the OP into believing that the matter is over and that the retailer now has no comeback against them.  What it deliberately does not say is that because the bank proceeded with a chargeback rather than a s75, the retailer might still be able to sue the OP to recover their money.  It's wrong.

If you still want to persevere with the belief that the OP got what they wanted, why don't you ask them here in the thread?  Ask them if they (a) wanted to get their money back and for that to be the end of the matter, or whether (b) they would have preferred to get their money back and get threats of being sued from the retailer.  I know which I'd prefer...




NB - whether the OP actually gets sued by the retailer in this case is irrelevant to my general point.  My general point is that where a consumer makes a valid s75 claim then it is that that their bank or CC provider should process, and not just decide to process a chargeback instead because that is cheaper to them.  A chargeback clearly leaves a consumer in a more vulnerable position that a s75 claim.  It's been clear from several threads on here that banks and CC providers often choose to process a chargeback even when a s75 claim has been requested and is appropriate.  I suspect the default position of the banks is to go for a chargeback even when it should be a s75

ItsComingRome

Manxman_in_exile said:

ItsComingRome said:

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.

The OP quite clearly did not get what they wanted.

What the OP wanted was to get their money back and for that to be the end of the matter.  Instead what they got was their money back together with something far less welcome too - threats to sue them from the retailer.

That is because the bank evaded their responsibility to their client under s75 and instead processed a chargeback which - as we all know - leaves the OP vulnerable to being sued by the retailer trying to get their money back.  And of course the bank processes a chargeback rather than a s75 not because it is in their customer's interrest, but because it is in the bank's own interest.

You can see the lack of respect the bank has for their customer in the response above where they disingenuously say "... there is no record of them submitting a counterclaim to this in the time since and we are currently outside the 45 day window in which they can do that. ...but it would appear they are currently unable to claim back the amount credited on that date at this stage".

That is clearly designed to mislead the OP into believing that the matter is over and that the retailer now has no comeback against them.  What it deliberately does not say is that because the bank proceeded with a chargeback rather than a s75, the retailer might still be able to sue the OP to recover their money.  It's wrong.

If you still want to persevere with the belief that the OP got what they wanted, why don't you ask them here in the thread?  Ask them if they (a) wanted to get their money back and for that to be the end of the matter, or whether (b) they would have preferred to get their money back and get threats of being sued from the retailer.  I know which I'd prefer...




NB - whether the OP actually gets sued by the retailer in this case is irrelevant to my general point.  My general point is that where a consumer makes a valid s75 claim then it is that that their bank or CC provider should process, and not just decide to process a chargeback instead because that is cheaper to them.  A chargeback clearly leaves a consumer in a more vulnerable position that a s75 claim.  It's been clear from several threads on here that banks and CC providers often choose to process a chargeback even when a s75 claim has been requested and is appropriate.  I suspect the default position of the banks is to go for a chargeback even when it should be a s75

S75, as you well know, merely states that the debtor has the same rights against the creditor as they do the retailer.  It says nothing of how the bank has to go about that, nor that the funds have to come out of the banks own pocket.

The OP has consumer rights to a refund, replacement or repair.

In this instance, they have been given a refund, which is in line with their consumer rights and satisfies the bank's obligations under S75. The fact that it was done via a chargeback is irrelevant to S75.

Manxman_in_exile

ItsComingRome said:

viksviks84 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!

It is a terrible situation to put a customer in, isn't it, I'll certainly be asking this question and if necessary taking it further. 

...

The banks aren't interested in consumer rights, per se, only what the chargeback regulations say.  Unless there is clearly no valid claim under the chargeback rules it will be processed and it is up to the retailer to counter this.

...

So you are confirming my suspicion that if a customer approaches their bank with a valid s75 claim, they will by default process it as a chargeback rather than a s75?

ItsComingRome said:

viksviks84 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!

It is a terrible situation to put a customer in, isn't it, I'll certainly be asking this question and if necessary taking it further. 

...

The FOS can't, and won't, force the banks to refund you out of their own pockets. S75 doesn't specify where a refund has to come from, so a complaint on this basis is a non-starter.

Thank you.  That sounds like a very well informed view and the first part certainly makes sense.

But can you confirm whether or not a retailer who has had a s75 claim awarded against them (and the bank has taken the refunded money from that retailer, not from its own funds)  is able to sue the consumer to recover the money refunded to them by the bank?

So, for example, if a s75 complaint went to the FOS and they decided that the bank should honour the claim and the bank refunded the money from the retailer's account, are you saying that the retailer could still sue the consumer in the face of the FOS decision?  Is that the current legal position?

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!

The repair option was just a idea. Nothing more. Some people will do stuff like that, others will want a replacement etc...

Very poor quality sofa to use chipboard for something like a area that will get a lot of stress when being moved on carpet.

Bank reviews every case as they see it & take the best action. If chargeback fails then there is the option for a S75 claim if it falls under the criteria. 
In reality company should have followed the card rules and contested it. Rather than simply accepting it & then sending out the letter they did.

Interesting how it is the banks fault for doing the work. And not the company for sorting the issue in the 1st place.

How I long for the old Maestro day & 3 chargebacks.... When it switched to Visa we went from 1 or 2 a day to hundreds...👍