Use credit card to 'transfer' to supplier

Voyager2002

No-one has commented on the really big hole in your plan...

You talk about paying a "supplier" so it is clear that you are running a business. The protection that you seek is only available to consumers (the law in question refers to CONSUMER credit). You will have to protect yourself by refusing to pay in advance, or possibly by using an escrow service.

Heedtheadvice

Ooh, such thoughts!

No I am not running a business - see post #1!

No I am not trying to wangle something unreasonable!

I am just trying to fully understand the possibilities and clearly from posts and online info one cannot do  transfer from a credit card account to another's account and get S75 protection.

What I am looking for is not unreasonable.

If you think it is then explain to me why you get protection via a credit card account (in law) but why you should not from other types of account. One of the risks is the supplier /seller/retailer  going out of business prior to, during or after delivery of whatever is purchased with potential loss in any of those situations by the consumer. Think non delivery,  faulty goods, lack of warranty, failure to provide a service etc.

How does consumer law protect the consumer in those situations? Escrow would not normally come into it.

Interestingly someone on the Green and Ethical board had a similar question where the Solar system installer wished up front payment (not unheard of currently) in whole or part with quite large sums and long lead times involved at present. Pay from one account type with a card protection. From another zero!

grumbler

Heedtheadvice said:

What I am looking for is not unreasonable.

If you think it is then explain to me why you get protection via a credit card account (in law) but why you should not from other types of account.

"Don't look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is not there"

You are trying to find some sense where there is no any. IMHO, s75 is absolutely illogical archaic piece of legislation that makes no sense whatsoever. Hardly a surprise that this sort of 'protection' is unique for UK.

lr1277

As I understand it, when parliamen wrote the laws around credit cards and S75, they put in the legislation we have now because they wanted to protect consumers who were going into debt to buy something.

I realise there are other ways of going into debt that are not protected, but this is the approach provided by parliament.

DullGreyGuy

lr1277 said:

As I understand it, when parliamen wrote the laws around credit cards and S75, they put in the legislation we have now because they wanted to protect consumers who were going into debt to buy something.

I realise there are other ways of going into debt that are not protected, but this is the approach provided by parliament.

The law doesnt capture the rationale for it, you could look at Hansard if you really wanted to see what the discussions were at the time but still you'd be second guessing the motivation. 

The law was drafted when credit cards, tied finance etc was exceptionally uncommon. Where businesses that could accept credit cards were equally uncommon. There was a logic that someone somewhere was making a material choice when deciding if to give a business the ability to accept credit cards or not and only a handful of banks issued cards or facilitated accepting cards. Hence there was an element of holding the banks feet to the fire for having decided ABC Ltd was an appropriate company to be able to accept cards.

Today, I can go to paypal and start accepting payments online in minutes, i can go to zettle or sum up and start accepting payments in person tomorrow (or in minutes if I already have a reader). There are vastly more companies involved, not all operate on both sides of the fence and credit (both having it and being able to accept it) is freely available to the masses without the scrutiny of the people involved.

The legislation hasnt kept up with the change in attitudes or technologies hence we find PayPal in a sometimes there is, sometimes there isnt situation and many cases going to the Ombudsman on if the likes of Zettle or SumUp create an additional party to the process or not. 

Heedtheadvice said:

What I am looking for is not unreasonable.

If you think it is then explain to me why you get protection via a credit card account (in law) but why you should not from other types of account. One of the risks is the supplier /seller/retailer  going out of business prior to, during or after delivery of whatever is purchased with potential loss in any of those situations by the consumer. Think non delivery,  faulty goods, lack of warranty, failure to provide a service etc.

How does consumer law protect the consumer in those situations? Escrow would not normally come into it.

Firstly, see above.

Secondly, it is and it isnt unreasonable, in my opinion... fundamentally I dont understand why, for example, Barclaycard should be liable for £20,000 for a duff car I was sold when I paid £1 to the dealer via Zettle mobile card reader which he'd only signed up for 2 days ago. Barclaycard has had no opportunity to vet the dealer, inspect the vehicle or anything else. However thats what the law says and we have to operate within the law even if we dont agree with it. And so on the flipside its understandable that if a weird law can apply that you look into ways for it to apply.

Most of those situations consumer law creates a liability on the supplier, just if you pay by credit card and the value of the product is between two bounds then that liability is replicated to the creditor. S75 doesnt give you any additional rights, just an extra party you can pursue which is particularly important when it comes to insolvency but is arguably over rated in many other circumstances.

Heedtheadvice

Thank you for those posts.

I'll stick with my dog seeing as the black cat is a myth!

born_again

Heedtheadvice said:

Ooh, such thoughts!

No I am not running a business - see post #1!

No I am not trying to wangle something unreasonable!

I am just trying to fully understand the possibilities and clearly from posts and online info one cannot do  transfer from a credit card account to another's account and get S75 protection.

What I am looking for is not unreasonable.

If you think it is then explain to me why you get protection via a credit card account (in law) but why you should not from other types of account. One of the risks is the supplier /seller/retailer  going out of business prior to, during or after delivery of whatever is purchased with potential loss in any of those situations by the consumer. Think non delivery,  faulty goods, lack of warranty, failure to provide a service etc.

How does consumer law protect the consumer in those situations? Escrow would not normally come into it.

Interestingly someone on the Green and Ethical board had a similar question where the Solar system installer wished up front payment (not unheard of currently) in whole or part with quite large sums and long lead times involved at present. Pay from one account type with a card protection. From another zero!

TBH. No card provider would use S75 in any of these cases. They use chargebacks, as the money comes from the retailer, or their merchant bank if they have gone bust. NOT your credit card co.

S75 was put in place when in reality CC's were not really a thing as they are now. It was designed where you got credit from companies when you bought goods. So there was a actual tie in between credit & supply. So making the credit supplier jointly and severally liable made sense in legal terms
Unlike now where CC are mainstream & S75 comes into play, even though the CC has nothing to do with the actual purchase. 

S75 really need a total overhaul to bring it uptodate.

Your normal consumer rights protect you in other cases. Which is what you are looking at. 

End of the day if you could do what you wanted it would not be covered by S75 as you are transferring money. NOT purchasing anything.

Heedtheadvice

Thanks for that explanatory post.

One thing I cannot understand is your last para

"End of the day if you could do what you wanted it would not be covered by S75 as you are transferring money. NOT purchasing anything."

How do you come to that conclusion? The things I refer to are purchases. Whether by money transfer, card transactions, handover of cash, cheque, Direct Debit, PayPal/ other 'digital' based methods these are surely just different methods of payments for purchases? Of course as has been clarified several times in the thread S75 would not apply but they ARE purchases!

I must find out from my local one man plumber and heating engineer who his merchant bank is. I can well imagine his response!! :-)

born_again

Using sort & account numbers is just moving cash. Same as from your normal bank account (faster payment) Unlike when a retailers takes the funds from your account.

So basically a purchase is when retailer takes funds. Not when you send funds to them 👍

grumbler

Heedtheadvice said:

Thanks for that explanatory post.

How do you come to that conclusion?

He just stated the fact, not came to some conclusion. I can only repeat - stop looking for a black cat in a dark room.