Section 75 help please!

Moomin_Bear

Hi guys!  I'm hoping for a little help regarding a declined section 75 claim.  I bought tickets for a sports event to be held in July 2020 in Poland.  The event was cancelled and tickets carried over to the rescheduling 2 months later.  We were unable to make the rescheduling as at the time we weren't allowed to travel to Poland even if we wanted to.  We requested a refund, which they agreed to and said it would take up to 6 months to process in accordance with Polish law.  6 months later no refund arrived and all they will say is "all refunds have been processed".  I put a section 75 claim in with my Sainsburys credit card, but they have declined it on the following basis.

"A section 75 claim can only be used for purchases over £100.  Whilst the total transaction was £120, we can see that this was  for 4 tickets priced at £30 each.  As each ticket was under £100 you aren't eligible to use a section 75 claim"

I must say I think this as an absolute joke, the payment came on my credit card as a single transaction of £120.  Is there any way I can take this further or have they found a loophole to get out of paying what I'm due?
I'm so annoyed I'm tempted to take them to small claims court, but taking a Polish sports club to court probably won't do me much good, but can I hold the credit card company equally liable in court?

Any help much appreciated please.

cx6

Sainsburys are, unfortunately, right in this. They are not liable in court or otherwise.

Moomin_Bear

Even though it was a single transaction for £120?

[Deleted User]

Yes. It's not a loophole, but a fundamental part of the legislation.

[Deleted User]

Probably will be out of date but might be worth trying a chargeback as a last throw of the dice 

Sandtree

Deleted_User said:

Yes. It's not a loophole, but a fundamental part of the legislation.

Fully agree its not a "loophole" and it is clear here that the OP bought 4 tickets but it is something that can be unclear... if you buy a kitchen for £5,000 is that 1 item and so covered or do you say it was 20 handles at £25 each so they're not covered, 5 draw fronts at £90 so not covered etc etc

In practice I believe it comes down in a lot of cases as to how the invoice is presented but thats a relatively arbitrary mechanism as two companies selling the identical kitchen could present it differently and thus impact your rights... indeed with our own kitchen the first company did a 6 page itemised bill and then went bust (thankfulyl before we paid) but the second company gave a simple one side invoice that basically had 3 rows (kitchen, appliances and fitting) but then had a booklet with the 6 page list of parts, plans, 3d renders etc)

born_again

No loophole. Even this site covers this scenario

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases

The law states the item must be more than £100 to be covered by Section 75, but this is not always clear cut. This is where it gets quite tricky. The law is plain; the £100 threshold is for the cash value of a 'single item' (so excluding any fees, and charges such as delivery). 


Depending on the date they said all refunds processed, (has to be in the last 120 days) there may be a chargeback option for non receipt of refund. So long as you can get proof of refund. Date, amount & last 4 of card.

So send them a email asking can you confirm me that you have refunded £XX on date to card end 1234
That might just work.
Only other  thing that would affect this is the date of the payment, as this would have to be within the last 540 days.

Moomin_Bear

Thanks all.  I have already tried a chargeback and section 75.  They said it's past the time limit for a chargeback and declined the section 75 as above.  I'll have to go down the travel insurance route although suspect that may well not be worthwhile once the excess is considered.  Thanks for all your help though.

Sandtree

Moomin_Bear said:

Thanks all.  I have already tried a chargeback and section 75.  They said it's past the time limit for a chargeback and declined the section 75 as above.  I'll have to go down the travel insurance route although suspect that may well not be worthwhile once the excess is considered.  Thanks for all your help though.

You would each need to claim off your own insurances so most likely 4x the excess.

Moomin_Bear

Sandtree said:

Moomin_Bear said:

Thanks all.  I have already tried a chargeback and section 75.  They said it's past the time limit for a chargeback and declined the section 75 as above.  I'll have to go down the travel insurance route although suspect that may well not be worthwhile once the excess is considered.  Thanks for all your help though.

You would each need to claim off your own insurances so most likely 4x the excess.

It's a family policy, so I'm not sure, but got a sneaking suspicion we're scuppered any which way.  I shall however make sure I leave scathing feedback for the original company who promised a refund but reneged!

Sandtree

Moomin_Bear said:

Sandtree said:

Moomin_Bear said:

Thanks all.  I have already tried a chargeback and section 75.  They said it's past the time limit for a chargeback and declined the section 75 as above.  I'll have to go down the travel insurance route although suspect that may well not be worthwhile once the excess is considered.  Thanks for all your help though.

You would each need to claim off your own insurances so most likely 4x the excess.

It's a family policy, so I'm not sure, but got a sneaking suspicion we're scuppered any which way.  I shall however make sure I leave scathing feedback for the original company who promised a refund but reneged!

I've little idea on the Polish legal system but if the event went ahead as you dont mention that the rescheduled one being cancelled and the issue was that an issue outside of the control of the event organiser prevented you getting there then in many places, including the UK, you'd have no right for a refund. 

I personally would be surprised if Polish law was more generous than UK law but could be wrong. 

There is always a debate on if the contact centre agent made a mistake/misunderstood the situation and they give wrong advice if it is binding on their employer, but again you'd need someone who knows Polish law to advise, especially as it was post contract.