We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

The card issuer refused to accept the claim only because the customer had not contacted the merchant

The customer received the following message in response to a product complaint from their credit card issuer:

"We did receive documents earlier indicating you received rotten items, however we also require a proof of good faith attempt made with merchant as an evidence confirming they were contacted and were given an opportunity to provide a resolution. You may send a copy of any communication sent to the merchant via email or chat.
For now, we have closed our investigation and the amount previously under review has been reapplied to your account balance. You will see the change reflected on an upcoming billing statement.
If you would like us to reopen the investigation, please provide us the relevant documents that support your claim and we will be glad to assist you further."

The merchant does not provide with any other method of contact than a telephone number, and the customer, due to disability and illness among other reasons can only make contact on-line, hence the complaint was sent to the credit card issuer on-line and not to the merchant.

It seemed that the law allows the customer to choose how they wish to complain about the goods or services purchased, either through the credit card issuer or through the retailer. There is no obligation, as far as I am aware, to contact the retailer if a claim is made through the credit card issuer, so that the retailer has not been contacted first cannot be the sole basis for refusing to accept the claim.

Has the law changed in this respect? Could someone, please, provide with a quote of the rules of law to send them to the card issuer, as an evidence that their requirements are contrary to the law?

Many thanks!

Comments

  • WillPS
    WillPS Posts: 4,383 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Newshound! Name Dropper
    Does the merchant not have an address which you could send a letter to? (Signed for would probably help so you could prove delivery).
  • grumbler
    grumbler Posts: 58,629 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

    If you don't receive the goods or services you paid for, and the retailer is refusing to refund, you may still be able to get your money back

    If you don't get something you paid for by credit, debit or charge card and the firm is refusing to refund you ...

    You must try to get a refund from the firm first, before you try chargeback.
    ....

  • WillPS
    WillPS Posts: 4,383 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Newshound! Name Dropper
    It might help if you let us know the merchant, and then we might be able to find a method of contact for you.
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 33,633 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    It seemed that the law allows the customer to choose how they wish to complain about the goods or services purchased, either through the credit card issuer or through the retailer. There is no obligation, as far as I am aware, to contact the retailer if a claim is made through the credit card issuer, so that the retailer has not been contacted first cannot be the sole basis for refusing to accept the claim.

    Has the law changed in this respect? Could someone, please, provide with a quote of the rules of law to send them to the card issuer, as an evidence that their requirements are contrary to the law?
    There are two separate mechanisms via which credit card transactions can be refunded via the card provider instead of the merchant, namely section 75 and chargeback.

    Section 75 is the one defined by legislation (the Consumer Credit Act 1974) and doesn't require any contact to be made with the merchant prior to claiming from the card provider, who is held jointly liable.  It only applies to items priced over £100 though, and purchased by the primary cardholder, and not through any intermediaries such as agents, etc.

    However, chargeback is an alternative scheme that'll often be preferred by the card providers, as they recover their costs from the merchant rather than reimbursing with their own money, but does entail supplying evidence of attempted resolution first - it's a scheme run by Visa and Mastercard rather than a legal entitlement.

    In this case it sounds like the card provider is treating this as a chargeback claim rather than a s75 one - if the transaction involved qualifies for s75 then the cardholder can insist on this....
  • CliveOfIndia
    CliveOfIndia Posts: 1,916 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper


    We did receive documents earlier indicating you received rotten items
    This intrigues me.  Does this imply that you're talking about a grocery delivery that contained some rotten food?  If so, then S75 won't be applicable, and it's chargeback that you'd need - which, as mentioned by previous posters, does require you to try and resolve the issue with the retailer in the first instance.
    But if you mean it's, for example, some wooden furniture or a shed or something that falls within the S75 requirements, then you could pursue this avenue.
    A bit more detail on the retailer and the goods involved may allow us to give you some more meaningful advice.

  • theorville
    theorville Posts: 44 Forumite
    Fourth Anniversary 10 Posts
    The total transaction amount is above Section 75 lower limit, but the disputed amount is below that limit (only some of the items are damaged). Can Section 75 be applied?
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 33,633 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    The total transaction amount is above Section 75 lower limit, but the disputed amount is below that limit (only some of the items are damaged). Can Section 75 be applied?
    No, the £100 limit applies at an item level.
  • CliveOfIndia
    CliveOfIndia Posts: 1,916 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    As above - S75 is applied at an item level (although, there's sometimes some ambiguity where a defective item means the whole purchase is unsuitable, for instance a kitchen installation - though even that scenario is tenuous at best).


    It seemed that the law allows the customer to choose how they wish to complain about the goods or services purchased, either through the credit card issuer or through the retailer. There is no obligation, as far as I am aware, to contact the retailer if a claim is made through the credit card issuer, so that the retailer has not been contacted first cannot be the sole basis for refusing to accept the claim.
    Given that it sounds like you're making a Chargeback rather than a S75 claim then the card company appear to be playing it by the book.  As requested earlier, if you're able to provide a little more detail about the defective item(s) and the retailer, we may be able to give a little more concrete advice.

  • born_again
    born_again Posts: 16,984 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    The total transaction amount is above Section 75 lower limit, but the disputed amount is below that limit (only some of the items are damaged). Can Section 75 be applied?
    No.
    But why have you not contacted retailer (who are they?)

    Life in the slow lane
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 346.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 251.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 451.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 238.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 614.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 174.8K Life & Family
  • 252.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.