Called to court after Sec75 approved

TELLIT01

I'll leave the explanation of the differences between 'Chargeback' and 'S75' to others.  All I'll contribute is a warning not to ignore the papers from the court.  If you don't attend it's likely that judgement will be made against you and you could be hit with costs and CCJ against your name.

MalMonroe

Peacetopher said:

So after following advice from citizens about faulty goods we received our money through a charge back.

we were left with a bed that we didn’t want and the manufacturer refused to take 

we then have a notice of a court summons in the small claims court from the shop that refused to respond or didnt object to the Section 75 in time.

how can this go to court when it’s basically already over?

we just want this to end, we don’t want the bed (it’s in the way) and we don’t want to waste time and money going to court.

Hi, from what you say it was advice from Citizens Advice that got you into this pickle so I would be contacting them to ask them what they advise now you've been summoned to court.

Is it that the manufacturer wouldn't collect the bed, or the retailer?  What reason did they give for not collecting? Obviously, as already mentioned, you have both bed and money - but you don't want the bed and nobody will take it away. 

If you cannot afford legal advice, Citizens Advice should be able to point you in the direction of legal help. After all, it appears that they helped you to land in this mess. But it appears that you do need some legal advice.

This is just my own personal thought and opinion, of course but what harm could it do just to give CA a ring?

eskbanker

Peacetopher said:

we then have a notice of a court summons in the small claims court from the shop that refused to respond or didnt object to the Section 75 chargeback in time.

In terms of the wider discussion about how appropriate it is for a bank to unilaterally choose chargeback instead of s75, I'd imagine that it's very much the exception rather than the rule that a merchant would simply ignore an attempted chargeback and then incur incremental time, effort and money pursuing the matter via court, so the balance of probabilities would normally support the bank's choice....

HillStreetBlues

eskbanker said:

In terms of the wider discussion about how appropriate it is for a bank to unilaterally choose chargeback instead of s75, I'd imagine that it's very much the exception rather than the rule that a merchant would simply ignore an attempted chargeback and then incur incremental time, effort and money pursuing the matter via court, so the balance of probabilities would normally support the bank's choice....

I would echo that.

Can't see that many retailers that either don't contest a CB  or fail in the defence  to then take a customer to court.

Manxman_in_exile

DullGreyGuy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:
To my mind that makes it even more important that banks should be acting transparently in their customer's best interests and not their own.

There are pro's and con's to both and particularly because you can do a S75 after an unsuccessful chargeback but because of the chargeback timelimit the opposite is rarely true is probably the deciding factor in my mind at least why its in the customer's interest to do a Chargeback before a S75 claim.

If the bank can honestly and sincerely say that it will be in the customer's (and not its own) best interests for the bank to pursue a chargeback first, and that if that chargeback fails then the bank will still do a s75 claim at no detriment to the customer - then fair enough.

But that's of no help to a customer who has had a successful chargeback and then finds themself being sued by the trader.  What the position there should be is that the bank tells their customer:  

"OK.  We think you probably have a valid s75 claim, but for reasons we really don't want to explain to you we would prefer to try a chargeback first.  If that chargeback fails we will still process a s75 claim for you.  And if that chargeback is successful, but the trader subsequently sues you in court, we will provide your defence to that claim at no cost or inconvenience to yourself because we think your s75 claim would be valid".

That's if it genuinely is in the customer's best interests to initiate a chargeback first.

If it isn't genuinely in the customer's best interests, the bank should do a s75 claim if applicable

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Manxman_in_exile said:
To my mind that makes it even more important that banks should be acting transparently in their customer's best interests and not their own.

There are pro's and con's to both and particularly because you can do a S75 after an unsuccessful chargeback but because of the chargeback timelimit the opposite is rarely true is probably the deciding factor in my mind at least why its in the customer's interest to do a Chargeback before a S75 claim.

If the bank can honestly and sincerely say that it will be in the customer's (and not its own) best interests for the bank to pursue a chargeback first, and that if that chargeback fails then the bank will still do a s75 claim at no detriment to the customer - then fair enough.

But that's of no help to a customer who has had a successful chargeback and then finds themself being sued by the trader.  What the position there should be is that the bank tells their customer:  

"OK.  We think you probably have a valid s75 claim, but for reasons we really don't want to explain to you we would prefer to try a chargeback first.  If that chargeback fails we will still process a s75 claim for you.  And if that chargeback is successful, but the trader subsequently sues you in court, we will provide your defence to that claim at no cost or inconvenience to yourself because we think your s75 claim would be valid".

That's if it genuinely is in the customer's best interests to initiate a chargeback first.

If it isn't genuinely in the customer's best interests, the bank should do a s75 claim if applicable

Surely the bank must do as the customer instructs, so long as it is within the law and within the terms and conditions of the account?

Advising the customer which is the best choice would surely amount giving financial and / or legal advice - both regulated activities?

sheramber

So after following advice from citizens about faulty goods we received our money through a charge back.

But did the OP request a chargeback or a S75 claim?

He introduced the S75 into his question but does he  make a mistake , thinking they were one and the same ?

Manxman_in_exile

eskbanker said:

Peacetopher said:

we then have a notice of a court summons in the small claims court from the shop that refused to respond or didnt object to the Section 75 chargeback in time.

In terms of the wider discussion about how appropriate it is for a bank to unilaterally choose chargeback instead of s75, I'd imagine that it's very much the exception rather than the rule that a merchant would simply ignore an attempted chargeback and then incur incremental time, effort and money pursuing the matter via court, so the balance of probabilities would normally support the bank's choice....

HillStreetBlues said:

eskbanker said:

In terms of the wider discussion about how appropriate it is for a bank to unilaterally choose chargeback instead of s75, I'd imagine that it's very much the exception rather than the rule that a merchant would simply ignore an attempted chargeback and then incur incremental time, effort and money pursuing the matter via court, so the balance of probabilities would normally support the bank's choice....

I would echo that.

Can't see that many retailers that either don't contest a CB  or fail in the defence  to then take a customer to court.

As I see it, the problem here is not what happens in the vast majority of cases where things don't go wrong, or whether on "the balance of probabilities" it would usually make sense (to the bank... ) for the bank to initiate a chargeback first.  

The problem is the very small minority of instances where things do go wrong - the customer wins a chargeback and the retailer sues them.

This does happen, and there's an example here where the customer didn't want any more hassle from the trader and simply caved in when sued and returned the chargeback to the trader without a fight:   Credit card company refunded under s75, now the retailer is wanting me to pay them back - Page 9 — MoneySavingExpert Forum   (And that's also another example where a consumer asked for a s75 claim but a chargeback was initiated without the customer being told).

If a bank's customer has a valid s75 claim, but it's still genuinely in the customer's interests* to initiate a a chargeback first, then ok.

But, as I said in my previous reply to DullGreyGuy, the quid pro quo for that (ie where the customer had a valid s75 claim) should be that the bank agrees to provide their customer's defence in court should they subsequently be sued by the trader after a successful chargeback. 



*And I'm not convinced in any case that doing a chargeback is always in the customer's best interests, and I think that what is in the customer's best interest is the only criterion that should be used by a bank in deciding which route to go down.

eskbanker

But are banks actually required to act in the customer's best interests in scenarios where the nature of the relationship is that the interests of bank and customer are diametrically opposed, such as s75, where the customer is holding the bank legally liable in an essentially adversarial stance, unlike chargeback where bank and customer are effectively acting in unison against a third party?

Terms like 'duty of care' and 'treating customers fairly' require nuanced interpretation, so it's not clear to me that banks are actually required to prioritise customer interests over their own in these specific circumstances, but happy to be persuaded otherwise via directly relevant citations from FCA, FOS, etc?

Manxman_in_exile

Just to clarify for the OP - nothing in my posts discussing the pros and cons of s75 -v- a chargeback negates the advice that I and other posters have already given him that he needs to acknowledge and defend the claim.  Otherwise he risks losing by default.

(This is why chargebacks are not good when they go wrong like this... )