Section 75 – Credit Provider Expecting Retention of Faulty Goods

Sandtree

Your only option is to log a complaint and argue that the initial call it was discussed and the agent's advice meant you understood that you could dispose of the goods.

Will the argument work? No one here can say because we dont have the benefit of having heard the actual telephone call and not to question your honesty but the reality of trying to remember a call from a few weeks/months ago is that recall tends to be imperfect. 

I assume however that the bank will have a recording of the call, I know the FOS looks dimmly on insurers who are unable to provide call recordings/transcripts 

Nebulous2

badger01 said:

Nebulous2 said:

You can take both the credit card company and the merchant to court. I did exactly that some years ago and that got their attention very quickly.  They did want the oven back however.... 

Rejecting Oven — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Thanks for this. I notice that a few months passed by in 2016 between delivery and resolution. What did you do with the faulty oven during this period and when did you finally get rid of it? I assume Curry's nor Nationwide ever asked for it back?

Thanks.

It took a while to send the LBA and then initiate court action. Currys allocated someone from their legal team who was polite and reasonable to deal with. He asked for photos of the oven, which I supplied. He then agreed to refund the cost and my court fees, basically the full amount of my claim. 

I had kept the oven and packaging  throughout and they arranged a courier to collect it and take it away. 

I heard nothing from Nationwide throughout - though I presume they had agreed to let Currys handle it as they were a party to the court claim.  They marked my credit card as being 'in dispute' which was annoying. 

bris

The card provider never asks for the goods back, they only deal with the money side of things. Just because they said they had no interest in the goods doesn't mean it ends there.

The supplier however have the right to them back, they should be given the option to collect the goods which you disposed off.

The card provider don't just pay you and leave it at that, they now take the cost back from the supplier, who then gets mad and want their goods back, which is theirs after all.
So you are wrong to think they havn't been held to account.

Video evedence can be manipulated so wouldn't work but in any case the goods wern't yours to dispose of.

You became an "involuntary bailee" which means there is a process before you can dispose of other peoples goods that you are in possession of.

You have little chance of a resolution in court as you are the one in the wrong here.

phillw

I'd certainly lodge a complaint that you are in this position purely because you followed their advice.

I'd have gotten it in writing first though.

born_again

bris said:

The card provider never asks for the goods back, they only deal with the money side of things. Just because they said they had no interest in the goods doesn't mean it ends there.

The supplier however have the right to them back, they should be given the option to collect the goods which you disposed off.

The card provider don't just pay you and leave it at that, they now take the cost back from the supplier, who then gets mad and want their goods back, which is theirs after all.
So you are wrong to think they havn't been held to account.

Video evedence can be manipulated so wouldn't work but in any case the goods wern't yours to dispose of.

You became an "involuntary bailee" which means there is a process before you can dispose of other peoples goods that you are in possession of.

You have little chance of a resolution in court as you are the one in the wrong here.

As far as S75 goes, that is not the usual case. In fact I have only ever known it when the bank has been in discussion with the retailer all the way through the S75 process. Which is as rare as hen's teeth.
In most cases if a retailer will not engage with a customer they will not engage with a bank. As they know who is going to be paying out.

bris

born_again said:

bris said:

The card provider never asks for the goods back, they only deal with the money side of things. Just because they said they had no interest in the goods doesn't mean it ends there.

The supplier however have the right to them back, they should be given the option to collect the goods which you disposed off.

The card provider don't just pay you and leave it at that, they now take the cost back from the supplier, who then gets mad and want their goods back, which is theirs after all.
So you are wrong to think they havn't been held to account.

Video evedence can be manipulated so wouldn't work but in any case the goods wern't yours to dispose of.

You became an "involuntary bailee" which means there is a process before you can dispose of other peoples goods that you are in possession of.

You have little chance of a resolution in court as you are the one in the wrong here.

As far as S75 goes, that is not the usual case. In fact I have only ever known it when the bank has been in discussion with the retailer all the way through the S75 process. Which is as rare as hen's teeth.
In most cases if a retailer will not engage with a customer they will not engage with a bank. As they know who is going to be paying out.

I was with Streamline for 15 years, one of the bigest merchants in the business and I can tell you for a fact they do not just fork out and let the retailer off scot free, they take it back from future transactions and hold the retailer responsible for any chargebacks and claims.

They might like the consumer to believe they are the ones paying out but it's very rarely the fact when an account holder is still  trading. 

born_again

So just how do they hold onto future transactions? 
If the retailer does not get the funds, the customer does not get the goods.

Chargebacks & S75 are totally different. One comes from the retailers merchant bank account. The other is the CC jointly liable.

bris

born_again said:

So just how do they hold onto future transactions? 
If the retailer does not get the funds, the customer does not get the goods.

Chargebacks & S75 are totally different. One comes from the retailers merchant bank account. The other is the CC jointly liable.

Through the merchant, Visa, Mastercard etc do not process their own transaction, the Mercant does it all.

Streamline, Barclays merchant services etc handle everything for them.

It's Streamline who paid me not Visa, Mastercard or American Express, the transactions from all card providers are held on the  merchants terminal then Streamline poll the machine once a night and it gets paid directly to me.

A refund is similar but the refund is deducted from any transactions taken that day, .

So look at it another way, do you really think the builder in this case is going ape **** if he wasn't getting the funds charged back from his account?

When an S75 claim is upheld then the retailer is the one deemed to have breached the contract, they pay, not Visa.

Been there and done that.

smashinglynaive

bris said:

born_again said:

bris said:

The card provider never asks for the goods back, they only deal with the money side of things. Just because they said they had no interest in the goods doesn't mean it ends there.

The supplier however have the right to them back, they should be given the option to collect the goods which you disposed off.

The card provider don't just pay you and leave it at that, they now take the cost back from the supplier, who then gets mad and want their goods back, which is theirs after all.
So you are wrong to think they havn't been held to account.

Video evedence can be manipulated so wouldn't work but in any case the goods wern't yours to dispose of.

You became an "involuntary bailee" which means there is a process before you can dispose of other peoples goods that you are in possession of.

You have little chance of a resolution in court as you are the one in the wrong here.

As far as S75 goes, that is not the usual case. In fact I have only ever known it when the bank has been in discussion with the retailer all the way through the S75 process. Which is as rare as hen's teeth.
In most cases if a retailer will not engage with a customer they will not engage with a bank. As they know who is going to be paying out.

I was with Streamline for 15 years, one of the bigest merchants in the business and I can tell you for a fact they do not just fork out and let the retailer off scot free, they take it back from future transactions and hold the retailer responsible for any chargebacks and claims.

They might like the consumer to believe they are the ones paying out but it's very rarely the fact when an account holder is still  trading. 

You're confusing S75 with chargeback.

Of course, if the chargeback option is open the bank will attempt to go via that method first.  We have no idea which method the bank tried but if the chargeback route was not open there is no mechanism for the bank to claim it back from the retailer other than possibly through the courts.

born_again

bris said:

born_again said:

So just how do they hold onto future transactions? 
If the retailer does not get the funds, the customer does not get the goods.

Chargebacks & S75 are totally different. One comes from the retailers merchant bank account. The other is the CC jointly liable.

Through the merchant, Visa, Mastercard etc do not process their own transaction, the Mercant does it all.

Streamline, Barclays merchant services etc handle everything for them.

It's Streamline who paid me not Visa, Mastercard or American Express, the transactions from all card providers are held on the  merchants terminal then Streamline poll the machine once a night and it gets paid directly to me.

A refund is similar but the refund is deducted from any transactions taken that day, .

So look at it another way, do you really think the builder in this case is going ape **** if he wasn't getting the funds charged back from his account?

When an S75 claim is upheld then the retailer is the one deemed to have breached the contract, they pay, not Visa.

Been there and done that.

S75 holds your bank jointly liable for the transaction. It has nothing to do with the merchant banks. As such they can not withhold any funds from the retailer going forward.

Been there done that on a daily basis. 

Even if your bank was the merchant bank taking payment for the retailer. They would be on dangerous grounds withholding future payments from a retailer. 
As you are talking about 2 separate sides of the banking process, and retailers would be kicking off big style & taking bank to court over the withholding of funds.

You seems to be  getting mixed up between a chargeback. Where the money is clawed back from the retailer for breach of card regulations & S75 which has nothing to do with card regulations. As it is a legal right that holds your bank jointly and severally liable for breach of contract misrepresentation on a item purchase over £100 up to £30K