Section 75: can a merchant take old refund back on a new transaction

born_again

From experience & I take on board what @bris said in their experience. It is very rare that we do. Maybe that is just us? It simply is not worth the cost. There is the odd one where someone thinks it's worth a shot. But retailer can simply ignore.
I've been told to write off 4 figures  (not inc pence either) in the past as it was not worth the time spent to look at the case.

" It's done by deducting further transactions from the terminal."
Not sure what they mean by this. As only retailer can process a transaction, not the bank.

I know for a fact that one bank took at least £10M hit on breast implant failure. As it was deemed not cost effective to chase it.

DullGreyGuy

bris said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Are you talking about s75 or a chargeback?

My understanding is that a s75 refund comes from the card provider, not the trader, so this shouldn't arise with a s75 refund.

As an ex merchant I can assure you the CC chases the merchant to recover their losses. It's done by deducting further transactions from the terminal.

CC does not pay the S75 unless the merchant goes bust.

When the CC believes there is a good case for a chargeback or S75 claim against the merchant do you really think they are taking the hit? 

Ok... mentioning chargebacks isnt helpful 

Realistically in most cases the CC company is not going to be the bank providing merchant services to the supplier and so presumably you are only referring to the minority of cases where you happen to use the same bank as the customer and given the number of independent merchant services companies that dont issue credit cards or loans those in theory would be protected.

Interested to hear @born_again 's response given they are adamant that banks rarely recover from the merchant (though 75.2 of the CCA gives them the right). As an insurance person who frequently recovers from others I've always been a little surprised especially if the merchant services and credit card is provided by the same banking group.

heatleader

eskbanker said:

heatleader said:

Yes it was section 75 (credit card) not chargeback.  Many thanks for the replies.

The other factor I wasn't sure of regarding Section 75 is I think I read somewhere it only applies to direct purchases i.e. not applicable via a third party such as a travel agent(?).  This being going forward on any future booking.

Chargeback can also be used for credit card transactions.

S75 does rely on a direct debtor-creditor-supplier chain, so if you buy a tour operator's package through a travel agent, then you'd only have any s75 protection for the actions of the agent rather than anything relating to the tour operator.

Re travel agent scenario.  Understood, thanks.  I did ask the travel agent about such as re-scheduling by the tour operator including associated with covid etc and advised that such event(s) should be covered by travel insurance.  I checked the travel cover I have via my bank account and, amongst other things, it does include for losses associated with covid.

The previous instance involving the Section 75 claim was as a result of covid lockdown.  The tour operator was determined not to refund (also barely contactable) and happily the credit card provider saw it as one of the clearest Section 75 cases they'd ever seen and had no hesitation in passing the claim and refunding my card.  Incidentally the merchant/tour operator had provided written reasons to the card provider (which they then copied to me) as to why they objected/challenged the Section 75 claim but it seemed to be a copy/paste exercise as if used on thousands of other "in denial" responses on other cases and which didn't seem to relate to the facts, dates and details of the particular case and all rather shoddy on their part.  All I will say is they are well known.