Conservatory / home improvement

eskbanker

jatjat said:

Just want to pick up on this thread and would appreciate any input. We went with the section 75 and have been back and forth with emails because the retailer challenged it twice. The credit card company did reimburse us with the money but just last week a phone call to tell us they were taking £500 back. No email with details about why. We are now wondering why we should have to pay this amount. We had a previous email that told us the retailers reasons were not valid but they had another 30 days to dispute it. Now they have charged us . All help gratefully received 

Your card company has chosen to pursue this via chargeback instead of section 75 - if the latter then you'd be claiming directly from the card company, but if the retailer is still in the loop then that's chargeback.  If the chargeback hasn't fully succeeded then you could potentially seek recovery of the £500 loss from the card company under section 75....

born_again

jatjat said:

Just want to pick up on this thread and would appreciate any input. We went with the section 75 and have been back and forth with emails because the retailer challenged it twice. The credit card company did reimburse us with the money but just last week a phone call to tell us they were taking £500 back. No email with details about why. We are now wondering why we should have to pay this amount. We had a previous email that told us the retailers reasons were not valid but they had another 30 days to dispute it. Now they have charged us . All help gratefully received 

So that is a chargeback, not S75.

jatjat

Does that mean another process via another route, like contacting visa/Mastercard and not going via the card provider? 

born_again

Back to card provider. Although if a S75 option, they should look at it automatically. 

But I would chase them just in case they do not.
Expect to provide more info such as T/C.

jatjat

Not sure what T/C stands for

born_again

Terms & Conditions.

CC will be looking for breach of contract & misrepresentation.

jatjat

Help again please. 

Following the charge back case the merchant has supplied the T/C to the CC. It T/C clearly states we have 14 day right to cancel. The Cc company are saying that we cancelled after we had received the T/C. I was under the impression we still had 14 days left to cancel. When I look at the dates we cancelled within the 14 day period. There is no mention about paying any fees, this only came out when we start to pursue our refund. The CC company are saying if we do not take the offer we could loose the case. 

Just wondering that we had a right to cancel but still had to take a loss. 

eskbanker

jatjat said:

The Cc company are saying that we cancelled after we had received the T/C.

I don't understand the significance of this, what difference are they suggesting that makes?

jatjat said:

It T/C clearly states we have 14 day right to cancel. 

[...]

There is no mention about paying any fees, this only came out when we start to pursue our refund.

Conversely, is there any mention of a full refund of all monies paid if cancelling?

What is the £500 described as?

jatjat

So not sure what difference this makes. It would appear that we are liable for the amount the merchant states he lost for building regs. and the supposed architect. In the T/C there is no mention about the amount to be refunded. This has only become apparent when we started the cancellation process.
The £500 was a sum the merchant decided was owed when we started to discuss the cancellation. 

RefluentBeans

So the merchant shouldn’t start processing any work until after the 14 day cooling off period has ended. You can request an exception and say you want the work (planning etc) to start ASAP, but then if you cancel they can charge you for the losses from that work. But they can’t unilaterally decide to do the work and then charge you for that work. 

That’s why there’s normally a 2 week lag between quoting for a job and the start of a job. If they decided to do work on their own, and you explicitly didn’t ask them to, then that’s on them and their loss to absorb. 

This is especially true if this isn’t a caveat in a contract somewhere. If they haven’t mentioned it at all (like you’re saying) but still wish to claim that defence, then I don’t really see how they can possibly claim that. 

Saying that - chargebacks (as it seems you have done) do not weigh in on legal matters and instead. The decisions they make will always favour the status quo. S75 is enshrined in law, but their investigations and decisions aren’t judgements in the legal sense, but have more standing for you. If the merchant isn’t giving up the money, then the next step is letter before action, and then court. At least then a decision can be made that is enforceable.