Can I be sued by a retailer after successfully invoking my rights under CCA?

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

HGRR1 said:

Hello, I wonder if someone can assist me. Over a year ago I received an incorrect charge by a retailer on my credit card. The retailer did not respond to any of my efforts to raise it with them, so I raised it with Amex, invoking my rights under the Consumer Credit Act. Amex duly refunded me the money.
I have now - a year later - received a letter from a debt collection agency saying I owe the retailer the money, and may be sued for it. Does anyone know if that would be allowed? It seems contrary to the principle of the Consumer Credit Act, and would allow a retailer to circumvent the protection of the legislation!
Any help would be much appreciated.

So AmEx just allow you to raise a "Dispute", same as most banks, and dont give you a choice as to if this is a Chargeback or a S75 under the CCA. Almost certainly they will have processed it as a chargeback which just takes the funds out of the merchants account.

S75 simply says your credit provider is equally liable with the merchant, and if credit provider pays out they have a right of recovery from the merchant. 

If it's a chargeback, most likely, or even if it was a S75 and AmEx then recovered the money from the Merchant there is nothing stopping the merchant from suing you for the monies due. Both processes are an out of court process and ultimately only a court can resolve a dispute if both parties cannot come to an agreement. All the processes do is move it to the merchant having to sue you than you suing the merchant. 

You seem to know more than me but are you sure on the S75? 

If the card company is joint and severally liable with the merchant then they pay out I can't see how that creates any liability from the merchant to the consumer - if the card company then recovers the money from the merchant surely thats a dispute between card co and merchant? 

I'm trying to imagine the situation in (sort of) a backwards way where if say you had a joint mortgage and you took money from your joint mortgagee to pay the mortgage I don't think they could then sue the mortgage company to refund it, they'd have to come after you. 

Keu

HGRR1 said:

Hello, I wonder if someone can assist me. Over a year ago I received an incorrect charge by a retailer on my credit card. The retailer did not respond to any of my efforts to raise it with them, so I raised it with Amex, invoking my rights under the Consumer Credit Act. Amex duly refunded me the money.
I have now - a year later - received a letter from a debt collection agency saying I owe the retailer the money, and may be sued for it. Does anyone know if that would be allowed? It seems contrary to the principle of the Consumer Credit Act, and would allow a retailer to circumvent the protection of the legislation!
Any help would be much appreciated.

It is quite simple, you entered into a contract, you and the car hire company were bound by the terms.

If the Car Hire company changed the terms of the contract the contract itself would have to allow for that but the consumer rights act says core terms must be prominent.

So if it is as you say that they changed the term after you accepted an offer based on terms that were different, then you were refunded because of the breach of contract which Amex would have requested you prove.

The debt collector will usually go away if you tell them the debt is disputed.

You then need to gather your evidence, make a copy of it and write a letter to the company explaining that the debt is disputed as they are well aware and if they wish to go to Court you will gladly let a Judge decide based on the evidence enclosed.

Alternatively, you can engage with them and say "please show me when you told me that you could change the term of the contract"

You can always report them to the Trading Standards where they are located and you can look on review sites or other forums for people who had a similar experience of this breach of contract.

Exercising your consumer rights does not make an alleged debt go away by itself, you need to send a letter on why you disputed the debt.  They passed it to a debt collector because they have nothing on file showing why you disputed it.

Line your ducks up, get a copy of the contract and any emails or other comms, do a subject access request for phone calls if there were calls.  Then start your letter.

DullGreyGuy

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HGRR1 said:

Hello, I wonder if someone can assist me. Over a year ago I received an incorrect charge by a retailer on my credit card. The retailer did not respond to any of my efforts to raise it with them, so I raised it with Amex, invoking my rights under the Consumer Credit Act. Amex duly refunded me the money.
I have now - a year later - received a letter from a debt collection agency saying I owe the retailer the money, and may be sued for it. Does anyone know if that would be allowed? It seems contrary to the principle of the Consumer Credit Act, and would allow a retailer to circumvent the protection of the legislation!
Any help would be much appreciated.

So AmEx just allow you to raise a "Dispute", same as most banks, and dont give you a choice as to if this is a Chargeback or a S75 under the CCA. Almost certainly they will have processed it as a chargeback which just takes the funds out of the merchants account.

S75 simply says your credit provider is equally liable with the merchant, and if credit provider pays out they have a right of recovery from the merchant. 

If it's a chargeback, most likely, or even if it was a S75 and AmEx then recovered the money from the Merchant there is nothing stopping the merchant from suing you for the monies due. Both processes are an out of court process and ultimately only a court can resolve a dispute if both parties cannot come to an agreement. All the processes do is move it to the merchant having to sue you than you suing the merchant. 

You seem to know more than me but are you sure on the S75? 

If the card company is joint and severally liable with the merchant then they pay out I can't see how that creates any liability from the merchant to the consumer - if the card company then recovers the money from the merchant surely thats a dispute between card co and merchant? 

I'm trying to imagine the situation in (sort of) a backwards way where if say you had a joint mortgage and you took money from your joint mortgagee to pay the mortgage I don't think they could then sue the mortgage company to refund it, they'd have to come after you. 

Its certainly my understanding @tightauldgit

Customer enters a contract to buy a bed, Supplier provides the bed. Customer goes directly to the Bank and says the bed's faulty, and the bank agrees to refund the monies and says the customer can do what they want with the bed. Bank happens to be the Supplier's bank and so they use the clauses in the banking T&Cs to take the money out of the Suppliers account. 

 So the Supplier still has the contract with the customer, has net zero money having had it taken out and has fulfilled their obligations to supply a bed which hasn't been returned to them. So same as a chargeback they would pursue the customer for failure to pay.

 According to others here who work in banking, recover of S75 claims from suppliers is very rare but then I dont know if their particular bank offers direct merchant services which makes the linked T&Cs/Offsetting much easier if the Supplier is also with the same company. 

 This is clearly a chargeback though not S75 so its all theoretical 

I dont follow your mortgage example, what has the mortgage company done wrong for them to be sued by your co-debtor? If the payment was say for the valuation and then the mortgage company just didn't release the funds despite approving the loan then absolutely your co-debtor could sue the mortgage company even though they paid their proportion (or all) of the bill via you.  

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HGRR1 said:

Hello, I wonder if someone can assist me. Over a year ago I received an incorrect charge by a retailer on my credit card. The retailer did not respond to any of my efforts to raise it with them, so I raised it with Amex, invoking my rights under the Consumer Credit Act. Amex duly refunded me the money.
I have now - a year later - received a letter from a debt collection agency saying I owe the retailer the money, and may be sued for it. Does anyone know if that would be allowed? It seems contrary to the principle of the Consumer Credit Act, and would allow a retailer to circumvent the protection of the legislation!
Any help would be much appreciated.

So AmEx just allow you to raise a "Dispute", same as most banks, and dont give you a choice as to if this is a Chargeback or a S75 under the CCA. Almost certainly they will have processed it as a chargeback which just takes the funds out of the merchants account.

S75 simply says your credit provider is equally liable with the merchant, and if credit provider pays out they have a right of recovery from the merchant. 

If it's a chargeback, most likely, or even if it was a S75 and AmEx then recovered the money from the Merchant there is nothing stopping the merchant from suing you for the monies due. Both processes are an out of court process and ultimately only a court can resolve a dispute if both parties cannot come to an agreement. All the processes do is move it to the merchant having to sue you than you suing the merchant. 

You seem to know more than me but are you sure on the S75? 

If the card company is joint and severally liable with the merchant then they pay out I can't see how that creates any liability from the merchant to the consumer - if the card company then recovers the money from the merchant surely thats a dispute between card co and merchant? 

I'm trying to imagine the situation in (sort of) a backwards way where if say you had a joint mortgage and you took money from your joint mortgagee to pay the mortgage I don't think they could then sue the mortgage company to refund it, they'd have to come after you. 

Its certainly my understanding @tightauldgit

Customer enters a contract to buy a bed, Supplier provides the bed. Customer goes directly to the Bank and says the bed's faulty, and the bank agrees to refund the monies and says the customer can do what they want with the bed. Bank happens to be the Supplier's bank and so they use the clauses in the banking T&Cs to take the money out of the Suppliers account. 

 So the Supplier still has the contract with the customer, has net zero money having had it taken out and has fulfilled their obligations to supply a bed which hasn't been returned to them. So same as a chargeback they would pursue the customer for failure to pay.

 According to others here who work in banking, recover of S75 claims from suppliers is very rare but then I dont know if their particular bank offers direct merchant services which makes the linked T&Cs/Offsetting much easier if the Supplier is also with the same company. 

 This is clearly a chargeback though not S75 so its all theoretical 

I dont follow your mortgage example, what has the mortgage company done wrong for them to be sued by your co-debtor? If the payment was say for the valuation and then the mortgage company just didn't release the funds despite approving the loan then absolutely your co-debtor could sue the mortgage company even though they paid their proportion (or all) of the bill via you.  

Yeah im not sure a mortgage is a great analogy it's just the only thing i could think of where jointly and severally liable was a normal thing. But in your example the buyer hasn't done anything wrong either, the bought the item and claimed back from the card company. That the card company took the money from the seller surely is a problem between them? 

I'm no expert on S75 so not talking from a position of authority just how it appears to me on the face of it. 

DullGreyGuy

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HGRR1 said:

Hello, I wonder if someone can assist me. Over a year ago I received an incorrect charge by a retailer on my credit card. The retailer did not respond to any of my efforts to raise it with them, so I raised it with Amex, invoking my rights under the Consumer Credit Act. Amex duly refunded me the money.
I have now - a year later - received a letter from a debt collection agency saying I owe the retailer the money, and may be sued for it. Does anyone know if that would be allowed? It seems contrary to the principle of the Consumer Credit Act, and would allow a retailer to circumvent the protection of the legislation!
Any help would be much appreciated.

So AmEx just allow you to raise a "Dispute", same as most banks, and dont give you a choice as to if this is a Chargeback or a S75 under the CCA. Almost certainly they will have processed it as a chargeback which just takes the funds out of the merchants account.

S75 simply says your credit provider is equally liable with the merchant, and if credit provider pays out they have a right of recovery from the merchant. 

If it's a chargeback, most likely, or even if it was a S75 and AmEx then recovered the money from the Merchant there is nothing stopping the merchant from suing you for the monies due. Both processes are an out of court process and ultimately only a court can resolve a dispute if both parties cannot come to an agreement. All the processes do is move it to the merchant having to sue you than you suing the merchant. 

You seem to know more than me but are you sure on the S75? 

If the card company is joint and severally liable with the merchant then they pay out I can't see how that creates any liability from the merchant to the consumer - if the card company then recovers the money from the merchant surely thats a dispute between card co and merchant? 

I'm trying to imagine the situation in (sort of) a backwards way where if say you had a joint mortgage and you took money from your joint mortgagee to pay the mortgage I don't think they could then sue the mortgage company to refund it, they'd have to come after you. 

Its certainly my understanding @tightauldgit

Customer enters a contract to buy a bed, Supplier provides the bed. Customer goes directly to the Bank and says the bed's faulty, and the bank agrees to refund the monies and says the customer can do what they want with the bed. Bank happens to be the Supplier's bank and so they use the clauses in the banking T&Cs to take the money out of the Suppliers account. 

 So the Supplier still has the contract with the customer, has net zero money having had it taken out and has fulfilled their obligations to supply a bed which hasn't been returned to them. So same as a chargeback they would pursue the customer for failure to pay.

 According to others here who work in banking, recover of S75 claims from suppliers is very rare but then I dont know if their particular bank offers direct merchant services which makes the linked T&Cs/Offsetting much easier if the Supplier is also with the same company. 

 This is clearly a chargeback though not S75 so its all theoretical 

I dont follow your mortgage example, what has the mortgage company done wrong for them to be sued by your co-debtor? If the payment was say for the valuation and then the mortgage company just didn't release the funds despite approving the loan then absolutely your co-debtor could sue the mortgage company even though they paid their proportion (or all) of the bill via you.  

Yeah im not sure a mortgage is a great analogy it's just the only thing i could think of where jointly and severally liable was a normal thing. But in your example the buyer hasn't done anything wrong either, the bought the item and claimed back from the card company. That the card company took the money from the seller surely is a problem between them? 

I'm no expert on S75 so not talking from a position of authority just how it appears to me on the face of it. 

I mean you could argue a causal chain but to me it feels that they could.

Is it materially different to a chargeback? They tell their bank, their bank refunds them out of their own pocket initially with a caveat that they'll reclaim the money if it fails, and then ultimately gets the money back from the Merchant's bank if the chargeback is successful. Certainly there is little question that the merchant in that scenario can sue the customer as many websites like this one warn of it.  But both bank pays up first and gets money from merchant second. 

tightauldgit

I think it is materially different from a chargeback. 

In a CB the consumer is asking the card company to take the money back from the vendor for a breach of contract. 

In an S75 the consumer is asking the card company to compensate them for a breach of contract by the card company. Technically the vendor isn't involved in that claim. 

That's how I thought it worked anyway. 

 

Okell

[Edit:  The reponse below ignores the question of whether the OP was right to assume that Amex upheld his claim as a claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 rather than as a chargeback claim]



s75 of the CCA simply makes the creditor in a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship jointly and severally liable with the supplier in the event that the supplier breaches their contract with the debtor. 

When the legislation was passed it was mainly - but not exclusively - done so with the intention that creditors could be held liable for breaches committed by a supplier if the supplier had gone bust.  It was essentially - but not exclusively - a safety net for consumers who had bought on "finance" and whose suppliers no longer had any money from which consumers could be reimbursed in the event of a breach of contract.

What legislators had in mind was enabling consumers (debtors) to sue in court their finance providers when it would be pointless suing the bankrupt supplier.

I don't think it was ever envisaged that creditors (ie credit card providers) would set up their own extra-judicial s75 schemes and processes to reimburse their credit card customers.  After all, why would they? But they did  .

So s75 makes a creditor jointly and severally liable with a supplier if a court decides that the supplier has breached the contrcat.  

But what if a court has not made that decision, and the credit card provider has simply decided off its own bat that it has s75 liability?

Under s75(2) of the CCA a creditor who has been found liable is entitled - subject to any contrary agreement between them - to recover from the supplier all losses and costs that the creditor has suffered as a result of that s75 liability.

I can easily foresee that if (1) a consumer has made a s75 claim against their credit card provider and (2) the card provider has found in the consumer's favour and (3) the card provider's agreement with the supplier allows the card provider to recover those losses from the supplier and the card supplier does so, then (4) there is nothing to stop the supplier from suing the consumer.

That does not - of course - mean that the supplier would necessarily win.  But it also doesn't mean that they wouldn't...

So I would say that the short answer to the OP's question is that there's nothing legally to prevent a supplier suing a consumer if the consumer's credit card provider has decided a s75 claim in favour of the consumer, the card provider has charged any resulting losses back to the supplier, and the question of the validity of the s75 claim has never been decided before a court.


NB - I'm aware from posts made by others like @born_again that it is probably pretty unusual (if not completely unknown) for credit card providers to recover from suppliers any losses resulting from s75 claims.  However, if they did, and absent any court decision upholding a s75 claim, I don't see why a retailer who had had losses passed on to them by the credit card provider couldn't try to claim against the consumer.  

born_again

TBH. OP would be best going back to Amex & asking just what they did in their case. Chargeback or a S75 claim. As all we are doing is guessing at the moment.
If it was a chargeback then OP is stuck & will have to defend in court, as they have the money back. No way to convert to S75.

I have no idea how Amex compare to normal CC's & if they do chase retailers. But given OP is now being chased. I can only think that Amex claimed the money back from the Car Hire co.

Op (unless I missed) has not posted the amount in question. Also has not been back since last reply.

outtatune

The important word here is 'may'.

I 'may' be hit by a piano falling out of the sky when I walk to work tomorrow, but I'm going to take my chances.

If you're happy you're in the right then in your shoes I would just tell the debt collections that I do not owe them or their client anything, and tell them not to contact me again.

Ditzy_Mitzy

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HGRR1 said:

Hello, I wonder if someone can assist me. Over a year ago I received an incorrect charge by a retailer on my credit card. The retailer did not respond to any of my efforts to raise it with them, so I raised it with Amex, invoking my rights under the Consumer Credit Act. Amex duly refunded me the money.
I have now - a year later - received a letter from a debt collection agency saying I owe the retailer the money, and may be sued for it. Does anyone know if that would be allowed? It seems contrary to the principle of the Consumer Credit Act, and would allow a retailer to circumvent the protection of the legislation!
Any help would be much appreciated.

So AmEx just allow you to raise a "Dispute", same as most banks, and dont give you a choice as to if this is a Chargeback or a S75 under the CCA. Almost certainly they will have processed it as a chargeback which just takes the funds out of the merchants account.

S75 simply says your credit provider is equally liable with the merchant, and if credit provider pays out they have a right of recovery from the merchant. 

If it's a chargeback, most likely, or even if it was a S75 and AmEx then recovered the money from the Merchant there is nothing stopping the merchant from suing you for the monies due. Both processes are an out of court process and ultimately only a court can resolve a dispute if both parties cannot come to an agreement. All the processes do is move it to the merchant having to sue you than you suing the merchant. 

You seem to know more than me but are you sure on the S75? 

If the card company is joint and severally liable with the merchant then they pay out I can't see how that creates any liability from the merchant to the consumer - if the card company then recovers the money from the merchant surely thats a dispute between card co and merchant? 

I'm trying to imagine the situation in (sort of) a backwards way where if say you had a joint mortgage and you took money from your joint mortgagee to pay the mortgage I don't think they could then sue the mortgage company to refund it, they'd have to come after you. 

The OP hasn't actually confirmed whether the debt collectors are working on behalf of the car hire agency or Amex (either is possible), but the situation - assuming hire car firm - isn't as complicated as all that.  A Section 75 or chargeback arrangement simply enables the credit card agency to retract the payment made to the merchant.  That resets the transaction, in that it leaves the customer in the position of not having paid for the goods/services.  On such a proviso, the customer is put in debt to the merchant.  It's no different, really, to paying for something in cash and then going and taking cash of equivalent value from the merchant's till at a later date (ignore theft); a debt is created between customer and merchant.

The legal situation could, therefore, be as straightforward as the hire agency claiming the OP owes money for a hired car and the OP disputing that as he believes said hire should have been gratis by virtue of a gift voucher.  It's the sort of thing that would need a court to decide, assuming the hire agency can be bothered to pursue the matter.