Lloyds Bank ordered to settle two-year-old Section 75 claim involving PayPal

born_again

MarvinDay said:

In the end everybody who has a credit card is paying for the payouts

is incorrect as there are a lot of people like myself who always pay off their credit card bills in full and therefore are not paying a penny towards any S75 payouts.

Fair point. I forgot about the people who settle in full 👍

born_again

arthurfowler said:

Who is going to want to go to small claims court because Currys won't replace/repair their £200 vaccum? In the end, it's the consumer who will lose. 

Will only be covered if fits the S75 criteria. S75 is not the cover all & get my money back, that a lot of people think it is.

I'm not saying S75 should be abolished. I'm saying it needs to be looked at by the FSA. To make it a fair & just system. 

The very people that cause the problem get away scot free & so carry on doing it to more people. Which I notice you did not answer previously. So I can only take it that you think it is OK for them to do that & expect the bank to pick up the tab?
Just because you can not be bother to take them to court.

arthurfowler

born_again said:

arthurfowler said:

Who is going to want to go to small claims court because Currys won't replace/repair their £200 vaccum? In the end, it's the consumer who will lose. 

Will only be covered if fits the S75 criteria. S75 is not the cover all & get my money back, that a lot of people think it is.

I'm not saying S75 should be abolished. I'm saying it needs to be looked at by the FSA. To make it a fair & just system. 

The very people that cause the problem get away scot free & so carry on doing it to more people. Which I notice you did not answer previously. So I can only take it that you think it is OK for them to do that & expect the bank to pick up the tab?
Just because you can not be bother to take them to court.

I don't agree that they should get away scot free either, but the primary objective for a consumer is to have their rights upheld and get their money back. 

"Just because you can not be bother to take them to court."

Like I said, most people are not going to want to 'bother' taking them to court, because people have enough to take care of in their lives. Section 75 currently helps give millions peace of mind and a far easier (and cheaper) method, than going to court. 

y3sitsm3

MarvinDay said:

born_again said:

arthurfowler said:

I still don't understand why you think it's not fit for purpose or needs an overhaul. It is there and helps protect consumers from unfair traders. 

So you are happy for the retailer to get away scot free? So they can just carry on scamming customers? On this a consumer rights forum...

 In the end everybody who has a credit card is paying for the payouts. Why do you think the interest rate is so high?

Everyone?
I've got two different credit cards (one Visa, one Mastercard) and I would estimate that a good 90-95% of my purchases go on these cards yet since I've had them, I've never paid a penny in interest on either one of them.
In fact, due to cashback I've received over the years, the credit card companies have been paying me.

Yes, everyone, including those who don't even have a credit card.

When you pay by credit card, you may not pay anything, but the shop certainly does.  Do you think the shop swallows the cost?

Of course they don't, and since they're now no longer allowed to charge for particular forms of payment, it just gets added to the item cost instead.

And by doing that everyone is paying the price, which is why I disagreed with this bonkers rule being introduced (another poorly thought out gem from the EU) in the first place.

Ergates

arthurfowler said:

born_again said:

arthurfowler said:

I still don't understand why you think it's not fit for purpose or needs an overhaul. It is there and helps protect consumers from unfair traders. 

So you are happy for the retailer to get away scot free? So they can just carry on scamming customers? On this a consumer rights forum...

 In the end everybody who has a credit card is paying for the payouts. Why do you think the interest rate is so high?

And the alternative you mentioned of the small claims court can be expensive, especially depending on the amount you are claiming for. The amount of people who will actually go through with small claims will be far lower than those who claim on Section 75, and therefore even more people will lose out on bad traders. 

Who is going to want to go to small claims court because Currys won't replace/repair their £200 vaccum? In the end, it's the consumer who will lose. 

I very much doubt interest rates would go down if Section 75 were suddenly removed. They would just pocket even more profit and keep them as is. 

I do agree that this protection should be for everyone, however which way you choose to pay, but currently it's either Section 75 or small claims court really, 

"Overhaul" doesn't mean "Abolish" - suggesting that S75 rules are in need of updating isn't suggesting they should be done away with.

Jenni_D

y3sitsm3 said:

And by doing that everyone is paying the price, which is why I disagreed with this bonkers rule being introduced (another poorly thought out gem from the EU) in the first place.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was introduced due to the EU? ... which the UK didn't join until 1975. Are you sure?  

Or are you meaning something different?

y3sitsm3

Jenni_D said:

y3sitsm3 said:

And by doing that everyone is paying the price, which is why I disagreed with this bonkers rule being introduced (another poorly thought out gem from the EU) in the first place.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was introduced due to the EU? ... which the UK didn't join until 1975. Are you sure?  

Or are you meaning something different?

I'm talking about the ban on surcharges for certain forms of payment...