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

tightauldgit

Ditzy_Mitzy 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. 

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.

I'm not sure that's correct at all. A chargeback and an S75 claim to my mind are very different. In a chargeback the credit card company takes the money from the vendor and returns it to the buyer. In a S75 the credit card company settles the claim for breach of contract as they are jointly liable. 

born_again

Ditzy_Mitzy 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. 

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.

S75 is where the CC provider is held jointly liable. The odds on them claiming the money back from retailer are very rare. As it is simply not worth the legal costs. Banks lawyers are not cheap.
Even consulting them would be far more than the OP refund.

As to Amex sending debt collectors. If they wanted their money back. It would be on the next statement, not via a debt collection company

Hire companies have a reputation for exactly this. Not disputing chargeback & simply getting the debt collectors in. Spoken to more than enough customers who have had this.

Okell

Ditzy_Mitzy 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. 

...  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....

I'm not sure that is correct?

My understanding is that a chargeback does indeed recover the payment from the trader and refunds it to the consumer.  In which case the trader might - depending upon the circumstances of the case - decide that the consumer still owes him the payment and pursue a money claim against the consumer.

But that isn't how a s75 claim works.  (Or at least that's what I've understood from posters like @born_again.)

My understanding is that with a s75 claim the card providing bank usually takes the hit itself and the payment is not necessarily recovered from the trader.  Yes s75 of the CCA permits the creditor - subject to any agreement between them - to recover from the trader any losses the creditor has suffered as a result of the trader's breach of contract, but my understanding is that that is not usual practice.

What that means is that if the OP's bank really did follow the route of a s75 claim and refunded the OP, but did not recover that loss from the trader, then the trader can have no valid claim against the OP.

But if either (1) the bank actually applied a chargeback rather than a s75 claim, or if (2) the bank did do a s75 claim and also recovered that amount from the trader, then the trader might well be able to make a claim against the OP.

Whether a claim in either case would succeed - who knows?

It's most likely that the OP is wrong in any event, and that there never was a s75 claim but a chargeback.