John Lewis Financial Services and Section 75 problem - IKEA goods.

eskbanker

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ectophile said:

I think I should point out that "chargeback" and Section 75 are completely different things. People tend to muddle them up, and that includes bank staff.

Chargeback is a voluntary scheme covering credit and debit cards, that the banks have signed up to.

Section 75 is part of the Consumer Credit Act. It's the law, and banks cannot choose for themselves whether or not it applies to a transaction. If you have a legal claim against a retailer, then you have the same claim against the credit card company.

Thank you.  I can't understand why this thread has been diverted into a discussion about the rules of card providers when it's  clearly about a s75 claim (isn't it?).

I also can't understand why JL are blathering on about not applying to instore purchases.  Just because you've bought something instore doesn't mean you've had a chance to compare it against a display item.

OP wanted to claim under s75 but the JL response implies that they're handling it as a chargeback instead - card companies will often do this as it's the merchant who picks up the tab for a chargeback claim, whereas the card company needs to fund any s75 reimbursement themselves.  It often won't make a difference to the cardholder which process is used, and obviously most aren't particularly bothered as long as they get their money back, but in this case it would appear that JL are asserting that because chargeback isn't applicable then that's tough luck for OP.

I don't recall reading anywhere that it isn't possible to invoke chargeback for an in-person transaction so that's news to me (and hence the brief discussion on that point), but if JL are justified in saying to OP that chargeback isn't viable then they should process it as a s75 claim as OP had originally wanted....

Manxman_in_exile

I'm aware of the difference between a chargeback and a s75 claim.

If I tried to make a s75 claim and found my bank was treating it as a chargeback I'd make a complaint to the bank.  There have been instances on this board where posters have found themselves under threat of being sued by aggrieved sellers who've had chargebacks applied against them when the banks should have processed a s75 claim as that's what the customer wanted.

The only pro of chargeback is there is no £100 minimum spend.  I can't see many other advantages.  (for example the fact that a chargeback can't be applied where there is proof of delivery - even proof of delivery to the wrong address! - is plain daft).

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm aware of the difference between a chargeback and a s75 claim.

If I tried to make a s75 claim and found my bank was treating it as a chargeback I'd make a complaint to the bank.  There have been instances on this board where posters have found themselves under threat of being sued by aggrieved sellers who've had chargebacks applied against them when the banks should have processed a s75 claim as that's what the customer wanted.

The only pro of chargeback is there is no £100 minimum spend.  I can't see many other advantages.  (for example the fact that a chargeback can't be applied where there is proof of delivery - even proof of delivery to the wrong address! - is plain daft).

Bank is free to reclaim the funds. So even if they did a S75 just because customer said so, & Far too many say S75 as they have no idea on chargebacks 👍
So even if banks pays out under S75, they are free to do a chargeback. 
With the result you have mentioned.

DullGreyGuy

Manxman_in_exile said:

The only pro of chargeback is there is no £100 minimum spend.  I can't see many other advantages.  (for example the fact that a chargeback can't be applied where there is proof of delivery - even proof of delivery to the wrong address! - is plain daft).

Its much quicker to be resolved and most banks return the funds whilst the chargeback is being considered

Technically, it also doesnt have the £30k cap that S75 has

Manxman_in_exile said:

Thank you.  I can't understand why this thread has been diverted into a discussion about the rules of card providers when it's  clearly about a s75 claim (isn't it?).

No, in practical terms its about disputes as whilst the OP titles it S75 in reality its been dealt with as a chargeback