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

Manxman_in_exile

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

A section 75 claim wouldn't take money from the retailer so this scenario wouldn't happen.

...

So doesn't that contradict what you posted earlier this afternoon that "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" that doesn't mean that a bank could refund from somewhere other than their own funds?"  

If the bank doesn't pay it and the retailer doesn't pay it, who does?  (And if you say other customers, that counts as the bank).

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

...

On the face of it, I see no reason why, if the banks could take the money off retailers in the case of an S75 complaint, that the retailer wouldn't have the right to sue the customer as well. Banks are not the courts.

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again 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!

...

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

...

I'm not suggesting the retailer isn't at fault - they are the major culprit here.

What I'm saying is that the bank is also at fault for processing a chargeback rather than a s75 refund - assuming that the OP asked for a s75 refund.  But my basis for saying that is that my understanding is that a chargeback still leaves the OP vulnerable to being sued by the retailer, whereas a s75 refund does not.  But its_coming_home is, I think, suggesting that it is still open to the retailer to sue the consumer even after a successful s75 refund.

Is that the case?

I've never suggested that the consumer is open to being sued after an S75 claim.  As I said, the retailer doesn't lose anything in an S75 claim, the bank does.

Surely those two positions are either contradictory or not clearly stated?  And you have previously said that the bank doesn't have to pay a s75 claim from its own funds...?

You continue to argue on the one hand that there is absolutely no difference between a chargeback and a s75 claim, but then on the other hand you claim that the consumer can be sued by the retailer after a successful chargeback whereas they can't after a successful s75 claim.  I would have thought that that was a very significant diffence from the point of view of a consumer who might end up being sued by an aggrieved retailer.  But you obviously think it's no difference at all...

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

On a S75 claim. A bank can not simply take the money from a retailers account. 

If FOS tells a bank to refund the customer then it comes from the bank. The bank could try a chargeback, but given the timescales involved in a complaint @ bank & then going to FOS is going to be well out of chargeback timescales.

We cross posted. 

Are you saying its_coming_Rome is mistaken to suggest that a bank or CC provider could choose to fund a s75 claim from the retailer's funds rather than from the bank's own funds?  I always thought the bank had to pay but its_coming_home seems to believe otherwise for some reason...

Thanks

...

A bank can and will go via the chargeback route if that is open to them. It is only if that is not available, or fails, that they would need to look at what the customers legal rights are and, if they are obliged, refund them out of their own pockets.

A chargeback fulfils the banks S75 obligations, so you can't specifically demand they foot the bill themselves, you can only ask to be reimbursed.  If your consumer rights are that you are entitled to a refund it is irrelevant (as far as the law goes) who is footing the bill.  If the bank reimburses you via chargeback, they've fulfilled their obligations.

If a consumer goes to their bank to exercise a complaint or claim based on a statutory right then that is the claim that the bank should pursue.  They should not substitute their own cosy and voluntary interbank agreement for the statutory complaint or claim.

In particular, the bank has obviously not fulfilled their obligations if the extra-statutory remedy they have provided leaves the consumer open to being sued by the aggrieved retailer when a properly dealt with s75 claim would not allow that to happen.

Pursuing a chargeback rather than a s75 claim is a bank simply evading their s75 responsibilities because it's cheaper for them to do so.  But I'm sure you disagree.

ItsComingRome

Manxman_in_exile said:

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

A section 75 claim wouldn't take money from the retailer so this scenario wouldn't happen.

...

So doesn't that contradict what you posted earlier this afternoon that "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" that doesn't mean that a bank could refund from somewhere other than their own funds?"  

If the bank doesn't pay it and the retailer doesn't pay it, who does?  (And if you say other customers, that counts as the bank).

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

...

On the face of it, I see no reason why, if the banks could take the money off retailers in the case of an S75 complaint, that the retailer wouldn't have the right to sue the customer as well. Banks are not the courts.

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again 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!

...

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

...

I'm not suggesting the retailer isn't at fault - they are the major culprit here.

What I'm saying is that the bank is also at fault for processing a chargeback rather than a s75 refund - assuming that the OP asked for a s75 refund.  But my basis for saying that is that my understanding is that a chargeback still leaves the OP vulnerable to being sued by the retailer, whereas a s75 refund does not.  But its_coming_home is, I think, suggesting that it is still open to the retailer to sue the consumer even after a successful s75 refund.

Is that the case?

I've never suggested that the consumer is open to being sued after an S75 claim.  As I said, the retailer doesn't lose anything in an S75 claim, the bank does.

Surely those two positions are either contradictory or not clearly stated?  And you have previously said that the bank doesn't have to pay a s75 claim from its own funds...?

You continue to argue on the one hand that there is absolutely no difference between a chargeback and a s75 claim, but then on the other hand you claim that the consumer can be sued by the retailer after a successful chargeback whereas they can't after a successful s75 claim.  I would have thought that that was a very significant diffence from the point of view of a consumer who might end up being sued by an aggrieved retailer.  But you obviously think it's no difference at all...

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

On a S75 claim. A bank can not simply take the money from a retailers account. 

If FOS tells a bank to refund the customer then it comes from the bank. The bank could try a chargeback, but given the timescales involved in a complaint @ bank & then going to FOS is going to be well out of chargeback timescales.

We cross posted. 

Are you saying its_coming_Rome is mistaken to suggest that a bank or CC provider could choose to fund a s75 claim from the retailer's funds rather than from the bank's own funds?  I always thought the bank had to pay but its_coming_home seems to believe otherwise for some reason...

Thanks

...

A bank can and will go via the chargeback route if that is open to them. It is only if that is not available, or fails, that they would need to look at what the customers legal rights are and, if they are obliged, refund them out of their own pockets.

A chargeback fulfils the banks S75 obligations, so you can't specifically demand they foot the bill themselves, you can only ask to be reimbursed.  If your consumer rights are that you are entitled to a refund it is irrelevant (as far as the law goes) who is footing the bill.  If the bank reimburses you via chargeback, they've fulfilled their obligations.

If a consumer goes to their bank to exercise a complaint or claim based on a statutory right then that is the claim that the bank should pursue.  They should not substitute their own cosy and voluntary interbank agreement for the statutory complaint or claim.

In particular, the bank has obviously not fulfilled their obligations if the extra-statutory remedy they have provided leaves the consumer open to being sued by the aggrieved retailer when a properly dealt with s75 claim would not allow that to happen.

Pursuing a chargeback rather than a s75 claim is a bank simply evading their s75 responsibilities because it's cheaper for them to do so.  But I'm sure you disagree.

When I said the FOS can't force them to refund out of their own pockets, I mean the FOS don't make decisions on whether S75 claims have merit, they can only rule on whether a bank has correctly refused an S75 claim because the purchase doesn't qualify.  Even then, the FOS would only tell the bank to look at it, they wouldn't tell them to pay the funds out. They themselves have said in their decisions that they don't have the knowledge or remit to make those kinds of orders.

I said a chargeback, from a legal standpoint, is identical to S75. The person gets their money back and it's case closed. Yes, an angry retailer can start sending threats after a chargeback, but it doesn't change the fact that functionally chargeback and S75 achieve the same purpose.

A chargeback isn't evading anyone responsibilities. I think you misunderstand the purpose of S75.  It's not a mechanism specifically to make banks foot the bill. It's a mechanism to give the customer the same right against the bank as the retailer. Well if the person gets a refund, it's case closed.  That's pretty much the gold-standard for consumer rights.

Wanderingpomm

Write to the retailer and tell them
the product was not fit for purpose and they may collect it. Send it recorded delivery so you can prove it if they do take you to court. It’s unlikely they will but keep the evidence as it’s clearly faulty. 

Manxman_in_exile

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

A section 75 claim wouldn't take money from the retailer so this scenario wouldn't happen.

...

So doesn't that contradict what you posted earlier this afternoon that "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" that doesn't mean that a bank could refund from somewhere other than their own funds?"  

If the bank doesn't pay it and the retailer doesn't pay it, who does?  (And if you say other customers, that counts as the bank).

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

...

On the face of it, I see no reason why, if the banks could take the money off retailers in the case of an S75 complaint, that the retailer wouldn't have the right to sue the customer as well. Banks are not the courts.

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again 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!

...

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

...

I'm not suggesting the retailer isn't at fault - they are the major culprit here.

What I'm saying is that the bank is also at fault for processing a chargeback rather than a s75 refund - assuming that the OP asked for a s75 refund.  But my basis for saying that is that my understanding is that a chargeback still leaves the OP vulnerable to being sued by the retailer, whereas a s75 refund does not.  But its_coming_home is, I think, suggesting that it is still open to the retailer to sue the consumer even after a successful s75 refund.

Is that the case?

I've never suggested that the consumer is open to being sued after an S75 claim.  As I said, the retailer doesn't lose anything in an S75 claim, the bank does.

Surely those two positions are either contradictory or not clearly stated?  And you have previously said that the bank doesn't have to pay a s75 claim from its own funds...?

You continue to argue on the one hand that there is absolutely no difference between a chargeback and a s75 claim, but then on the other hand you claim that the consumer can be sued by the retailer after a successful chargeback whereas they can't after a successful s75 claim.  I would have thought that that was a very significant diffence from the point of view of a consumer who might end up being sued by an aggrieved retailer.  But you obviously think it's no difference at all...

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

On a S75 claim. A bank can not simply take the money from a retailers account. 

If FOS tells a bank to refund the customer then it comes from the bank. The bank could try a chargeback, but given the timescales involved in a complaint @ bank & then going to FOS is going to be well out of chargeback timescales.

We cross posted. 

Are you saying its_coming_Rome is mistaken to suggest that a bank or CC provider could choose to fund a s75 claim from the retailer's funds rather than from the bank's own funds?  I always thought the bank had to pay but its_coming_home seems to believe otherwise for some reason...

Thanks

...

A bank can and will go via the chargeback route if that is open to them. It is only if that is not available, or fails, that they would need to look at what the customers legal rights are and, if they are obliged, refund them out of their own pockets.

A chargeback fulfils the banks S75 obligations, so you can't specifically demand they foot the bill themselves, you can only ask to be reimbursed.  If your consumer rights are that you are entitled to a refund it is irrelevant (as far as the law goes) who is footing the bill.  If the bank reimburses you via chargeback, they've fulfilled their obligations.

If a consumer goes to their bank to exercise a complaint or claim based on a statutory right then that is the claim that the bank should pursue.  They should not substitute their own cosy and voluntary interbank agreement for the statutory complaint or claim.

In particular, the bank has obviously not fulfilled their obligations if the extra-statutory remedy they have provided leaves the consumer open to being sued by the aggrieved retailer when a properly dealt with s75 claim would not allow that to happen.

Pursuing a chargeback rather than a s75 claim is a bank simply evading their s75 responsibilities because it's cheaper for them to do so.  But I'm sure you disagree.

...

I said a chargeback, from a legal standpoint, is identical to S75. The person gets their money back and it's case closed. Yes, an angry retailer can start sending threats after a chargeback, but it doesn't change the fact that functionally chargeback and S75 achieve the same purpose.

...

A chargeback can't be either legally or functionally identical to a s75 claim otherwise the banks wouldn't have needed to invent it together with it's own made-up T&Cs, would they?  The only reason chargeback exists is because it is to the banks' advantage to use it.  And one of those reasons - of course - is because they are making the refund from the retailer's funds and not from their own.

One particular aspect of a chargeback which born_again has described several times on these pages and which illustrates perfectly (1) that it is legally different from a s 75 claim, and (2) that it is staggeringly moronic in its application, is that chargeback offers no protection to a consumer for non-delivery, so long as it has been delivered* anywhere - even to the wrong address!  Under the Consumer Rights Act risk remains with the seller until the goods come into the consumer's possession.  So if goods are delivered to the wrong address the consumer would have a s75 claim, but they would not be eligible for a chargeback claim.  If the consumer has an enforceable legal remedy under s75 but none under chargeback, how can the two be legally identical as you say?

The above "feature" of chargeback also shows that it does not functionally achieve the same outcome as s75.  This is further demonstrated by the fact that after a chargeback the retailer can continue to pursue the consumer for their money whereas with a s75 claim they can't.  If you don't think that those two outcomes are functionally significantly different from the consumer's point of view then I can't imagine what you think would be functionally different.  I suspect the OP thinks that the possibilty of being sued after a chargeback is much much different from not being sued after a s75.

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

A section 75 claim wouldn't take money from the retailer so this scenario wouldn't happen.

...

So doesn't that contradict what you posted earlier this afternoon that "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" that doesn't mean that a bank could refund from somewhere other than their own funds?"  

If the bank doesn't pay it and the retailer doesn't pay it, who does?  (And if you say other customers, that counts as the bank).

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

...

On the face of it, I see no reason why, if the banks could take the money off retailers in the case of an S75 complaint, that the retailer wouldn't have the right to sue the customer as well. Banks are not the courts.

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again 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!

...

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

...

I'm not suggesting the retailer isn't at fault - they are the major culprit here.

What I'm saying is that the bank is also at fault for processing a chargeback rather than a s75 refund - assuming that the OP asked for a s75 refund.  But my basis for saying that is that my understanding is that a chargeback still leaves the OP vulnerable to being sued by the retailer, whereas a s75 refund does not.  But its_coming_home is, I think, suggesting that it is still open to the retailer to sue the consumer even after a successful s75 refund.

Is that the case?

I've never suggested that the consumer is open to being sued after an S75 claim.  As I said, the retailer doesn't lose anything in an S75 claim, the bank does.

Surely those two positions are either contradictory or not clearly stated?  And you have previously said that the bank doesn't have to pay a s75 claim from its own funds...?

You continue to argue on the one hand that there is absolutely no difference between a chargeback and a s75 claim, but then on the other hand you claim that the consumer can be sued by the retailer after a successful chargeback whereas they can't after a successful s75 claim.  I would have thought that that was a very significant diffence from the point of view of a consumer who might end up being sued by an aggrieved retailer.  But you obviously think it's no difference at all...

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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?

On a S75 claim. A bank can not simply take the money from a retailers account. 

If FOS tells a bank to refund the customer then it comes from the bank. The bank could try a chargeback, but given the timescales involved in a complaint @ bank & then going to FOS is going to be well out of chargeback timescales.

We cross posted. 

Are you saying its_coming_Rome is mistaken to suggest that a bank or CC provider could choose to fund a s75 claim from the retailer's funds rather than from the bank's own funds?  I always thought the bank had to pay but its_coming_home seems to believe otherwise for some reason...

Thanks

...

A bank can and will go via the chargeback route if that is open to them. It is only if that is not available, or fails, that they would need to look at what the customers legal rights are and, if they are obliged, refund them out of their own pockets.

A chargeback fulfils the banks S75 obligations, so you can't specifically demand they foot the bill themselves, you can only ask to be reimbursed.  If your consumer rights are that you are entitled to a refund it is irrelevant (as far as the law goes) who is footing the bill.  If the bank reimburses you via chargeback, they've fulfilled their obligations.

If a consumer goes to their bank to exercise a complaint or claim based on a statutory right then that is the claim that the bank should pursue.  They should not substitute their own cosy and voluntary interbank agreement for the statutory complaint or claim.

In particular, the bank has obviously not fulfilled their obligations if the extra-statutory remedy they have provided leaves the consumer open to being sued by the aggrieved retailer when a properly dealt with s75 claim would not allow that to happen.

Pursuing a chargeback rather than a s75 claim is a bank simply evading their s75 responsibilities because it's cheaper for them to do so.  But I'm sure you disagree.

...

A chargeback isn't evading anyone responsibilities. I think you misunderstand the purpose of S75.  It's not a mechanism specifically to make banks foot the bill. It's a mechanism to give the customer the same right against the bank as the retailer. Well if the person gets a refund, it's case closed.  That's pretty much the gold-standard for consumer rights.

I don't misunderstand the purpose of s75 at all - it's to make the providers of credit jointly and severally liable with suppliers in respect of consumers enforcing their contractual and statutory rights.  And insofar as a consumer has a valid claim against a supplier under contract law or staute, then its precise purpose IS to make the credit provider foot the bill if the supplier cannot or will not do so.  It's there to give additional protection to consumers by providing a safety net.  (I can remember this being explained to me in a much more eloquent way by the bloke who at that time edited The Encylopedia of Consumer Credit Law, Anson's Principles of the Law of Contract, and Chitty on Contracts -  Professor Anthony Guest (kcl.ac.uk)  And although he's now 90 I think he still knew what he was talking about 40 years ago).

"Well if the person gets a refund, it's case closed.  That's pretty much the gold-standard for consumer rights."  I'm not disagreeing with you there because that is self-evidently true of s75 claims (which is what I presume you are referring to as opposed to chargebacks).  The problem here is that we're talking about chargebacks and comparing them to s75.  Unlike a s75 claim the case isn't closed when a chargeback is made because, as you apparently accept, the consumer can still be sued by the retailer.  It's blatantly obvious that if s75 protection is the gold-standard for consumer rights then chargebacks barely achieve base metal status.

If a successful s75 claim protects a consumer from subsequently being sued by the retailer whereas a chargeback does not give that protection to the consumer, then the bank is acting to the detriment of the consumer and evading their responsibilities to them.  Unless of course you are saying that if a bank is presented with two alternative courses of action, one of which might open the customer up to being sued and the other which would not, that the bank does nothing wrong by choosing the first course of action.  I presume you must think that that is perfectly acceptable?

Anyway - none of this helps the OP...


*  Whether that is true or not I do not know but that is what born_again has posted on several occasions.  It seems staggeringly stupid to me but that's financial institutions for you.

ItsComingRome

I'm not going to quote all that but you again seem to misunderstand what S75 does.  It gives the same rights against the bank as they have against a retailer.

The best result you can possibly get when exercising your consumer rights is a full refund.  As a chargeback gives you that, it fulfils, and in some cases will exceed your consumer rights, which satisfies the banks obligations under S75 and closes the case.

Whatever happens after that is irrelevant, the customer has had their rights upheld and a refund issued.  The bank is not, nor ever will be under current legislation, responsible for anything else under S75.

Bear in mind that if the customer is sued, and loses, they technically didn't have a valid claim under S75 anyway.

I don't know why you can't understand that.

Manxman_in_exile

viksviks84 - apologies from me for contributing to this thread going off at a tangent which doesn't help you at all.

If all you've had from the shop so far is just a threat to sue you and not a Letter Before Claim or an actual court claim itself, simply write back to the shop (and I would email them as well) that the sofa is faulty as you have already explained to them (give them details and photos again) and that as they (1) refused to accept that you were rejecting* the sofa and they (2) refused to refund you, you sought a refund from your credit card provider.  You can further tell them that whether they can get a refund from their supplier has no bearing on any rights you have against them under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  Tell them that the sofa is ready and waiting for them to collect and all they need to do is to arrange a collection time with you.  (NB - I assume they originally delivered the sofa to you and that you did not collect it yourself?).  You can add that as you are making it available for collection by them, their claim that you have stolen it is ridiculous.

                 (NB - The above assumes the sofa is sufficiently faulty to justify rejection.  I don't know if it is or isn't).

It's very similar to this suggestion:

Wanderingpomm said:

Write to the retailer and tell them
the product was not fit for purpose and they may collect it. Send it recorded delivery so you can prove it if they do take you to court. It’s unlikely they will but keep the evidence as it’s clearly faulty. 

Because you haven't given any real details in terms of a timelines* and value it's very difficult to give more detailed suggestions as to what to do.  But I would recommend that you carefully read and digest the post made by the_lunatic_is_in_my_head at about 2:30 pm today.  (It explains the timelines for rejection*and how the goods should be returned etc).

Then wait and see if they actually sue you.  They would first need to send you a Letter Before Claim and then a claim itself.  If that happens, I suggest you come back here.

The above is what I think but I'm not a lawyer and others may think differently.  See what others say.

An alternative view is put by its_coming_Rome who suggests that if you just want to get this sorted out and be certain of not getting sued, then just contact the retailer and simply agree some kind of settlement with them.

Take your pick - but remember that nobody here has actually seen the sofa and witnessed how bad it is, so if you do get sued (which I think is probably unlikely to happen) nobody knows whether you'll win or not.


*Whether or not you can reject the sofa depends to a certain extent on when you bought it.  The post by the _lunatic that I refer to above explians all that

Jenni_D

ItsComingRome said:

I'm not going to quote all that but you again seem to misunderstand what S75 does.  It gives the same rights against the bank as they have against a retailer.

The best result you can possibly get when exercising your consumer rights is a full refund.  As a chargeback gives you that, it fulfils, and in some cases will exceed your consumer rights, which satisfies the banks obligations under S75 and closes the case.

Whatever happens after that is irrelevant, the customer has had their rights upheld and a refund issued.  The bank is not, nor ever will be under current legislation, responsible for anything else under S75.

Bear in mind that if the customer is sued, and loses, they technically didn't have a valid claim under S75 anyway.

I don't know why you can't understand that.

If an S75 claim succeeds then the Credit Provider foots the bill. (Whether or not they seek to recover those monies from the retailer is their concern and nothing to do with the consumer). Also, after a successful S75 claim the goods then technically belong to the Credit Provider, not the consumer or retailer. Thus the chances of the retailer suing the consumer after an S75 claim are remote - the retailer hasn't lost anything (unless the Credit Provider successfully sues them, which again is remote - the costs of pursuing this [with no guarantee of success] will often make the action not commercially viable).

With a chargeback the consumer gets a refund very quickly but the retailer has 45 (?) days to contest the claim. As said above, Credit Providers prefer to take this approach first because it costs them nothing - the monies are extracted from the retailer's bank. This leaves the consumer open to a) having the funds snatched away again if the challenge succeeds and/or b) being sued by the retailer.

So, as has been described earlier in this thread, a successful S75 has very different outcomes for a consumer versus a chargeback.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

suggests that if you just want to get this sorted out and be certain of not getting sued, then just contact the retailer and simply agree some kind of settlement with them.

I think the thinking here is that the OP had a refund 2 months ago but still has the sofa making them an involuntary bailee and they should take care of the goods and see them restored to their owner. 

I might have missed it but I don't know if the OP has repaired or is using the sofa or has tried to arrange it's return to the retailer. 

The problem the retailer has is they haven't abided by the OP's consumer rights nor did they defend the chargeback so they haven't mitigated their losses, if they went to court and by some chance won would they be awarded costs? Would those costs be more than the sofa, especially if the OP applies to the court for the case to be heard locally to them. 

And if the OP offers the sofa back to the retailer what are the retailer's losses anyway? Holding on to a broken sofa for 2 months doesn't really cost the company anything. 

As you mention a mere threat of court action isn't the proper procedure and until there is a proper letter before action and/or court papers the OP should simply be giving the sofa back at the retailer's cost in my view. 

Regarding S75 vs chargeback, as others mentioned the legislation simply places the same liability upon the credit issuer as it does the retailer, the question is are there any banking regulations that specify the card provider should issue a S75 if the customer specifically requests such. 

As, I think you pointed out, the banks reply in the screenshot avoids the question of whether it was S75 or not, the answer is known because the retailer has foot the bill but the average person isn't going to know this. Whether the OP has any right to complain about the bank's handling of the issue is a separate matter. 

born_again

Re above.
From a banks perspective. In most cases a chargeback is far quicker & easy (for customer) to solve their problem. S75 will require far more input from consumer to prove their case. As well as taking a lot longer.
Chargeback can in most cases be refunded same day & is subject to 45 day rejection by retailer. S75 can take months to get money back.
Also a quick and easy way to tell if a S75 is actioned. Is you may have to sign a full & final settlement ( we send that out, so would expect other to do the same to stop further claims on the same issue)

So realistically customer does not need to know which route is taken. Although we do tell the customer which route we are taking as we have to advise on a chargeback that if retailer fails to contest. That they can issue proceedings against customer. But where a S75 case could cover this. They are also advised that in the event of a rejection to the chargeback. That it will automatically go to the S75 team to review. Who will contact the customer if they need further info.


So basically the customer does not need to know how they get their money back, as all the customer is worried about is getting it back. It is simply a nice bit of customer service to tell them upfront on what is being done to assist them. 👍

Sandtree

Its an interesting discussion on the "right" for a S75 -v- chargeback... seems I missed the fun over the weekend.

Whilst the OP says they asked them to raise a S75 claim I personally would want to kick the tyres of that a little harder on exactly what was done and how. In another case on here not that long ago the bank has a page on Chargebacks and a page on S75, both pages have the link to the same webform which is entitled "raise a dispute". The text on the form itself is mute on what type of dispute will be raised but its understandable that you could assume its one or the other depending on which page you clicked through from (I imagine there may be other routes to the form too).

The OP therefore may have thought they were requesting a S75 claim but in reality were simply raising a dispute for the card company to decide how best to approach