Section 75 and Small Claims Court

born_again

No one has mentioned S75 requires £100 to £30K sped per item excluding P&P

I've tried the general disputes, ie chargeback approach, but they are not interested because i have no correspondence with the company, because it was a scam iimiation website, they just take your money and then disappear.

Intrigued by this, as this team would also look to see if S75 would come into play.

tomc239408934

DullGreyGuy said:

tomc239408934 said:
But the whole point of Section 75 is it is enshrined in law so cc contracts cannot override statutary liegislation and ultimately it is enforcable by the courts .. correct me if im wrong

Yeah i know the distinction between the courts, but as is common, "small claims court" is used as shorthand . ive been through court process before. the amount is just over 100 pound so would go down the small claims channel im sure.

On the address i was more meaning where i send my section 75 claim to .. is that also the registered address, or is there somewhere on the websites it will say?

Thanks 

The contract cannot remove your right to S75 but it can enshrine that they have 90 days to investigate. If you issue beforehand that's then there is a number of issues they could raise with the judge that could cost you money. 

It certainly should go to small track, and judges are encouraged to put it in the lowest track possible, but good lawyers can write very convincing arguments. Not saying they can get it pushed into Fast Track but if they do then you start becoming liable for their legal costs if you dont win or have abused process.

S75 would normally be done over the phone or secure messaging in response to them rejecting the Chargeback... general process, as supported by the ombudsman, is that a case goes to chargeback first if within the timelimits and only to S75 if outside the time limits and/or there is some other reason why Chargeback can't go ahead/is unsuccessful.

Thank you v much, that's the info i was looking for.
Unfortunately Amex rejected the chargeback becasue i have no documentation. hsbc have told me they will consider section 75 automatically after chargeback investigation which is still ongoing 3 and 1/2 months later

tomc239408934

eskbanker said:

tomc239408934 said:

I've tried the general disputes, ie chargeback approach, but they are not interested because i have no correspondence with the company, because it was a scam iimiation website, they just take your money and then disappear. 

tomc239408934 said:

retiredbanker1 said:

Firstly if you want advice - you will need to tell us what has happened.

Thank you but q was about my rights to appeal a section 75 claim directly to the courts .. other details are irrelevant and would just add confusion.

Up to you if that's the way you wish to approach it, but it's hardly surprising that experienced posters on here will try to add value by highlighting matters that may have escaped your attention.  My contribution would be to observe that a s75 claim requires you to demonstrate breach of contract or misrepresentation by the merchant, so the starting point would be to produce evidence of the contract, whether that's to the card company or ultimately to a court - if you couldn't do that to the extent needed to support a chargeback claim then how do you plan to do so to back up a s75 one?

I was victim to a scam imitation website after clicking on an FB link, i ordered supposedly a set of garden furniture and after paying never received any confirmation, correspondence, or anything else. obviouly the furniture never arrived and the website disappeared a couple weeks later as is common with these scams it seems. As I have no documentation, the only "proof" i can present is that the items never arrived. Surely there can not be a loophole that allowed cc companies to escape the section 75 legislation for situations like this if there is no documentation. Im amazed they aren't able to tell almost automatically for scams like this, as there must be a very large spike in chargeback requests for the alleged merchants. My making it so difficult to get the money back they only encourage the scammers.

Nebulous2

I had a dispute with Currys about an oven a few years ago, having paid for it with a Nationwide credit card. Neither company was very helpful, so I took them both to small claims court. Currys very quickly came to the table and settled. 

My thread is here - I'm sure I could have handled it better, but it worked. Once I was put in touch with Currys legal representative it was dealt with professionally and satisfactorily. It was the Scottish court system. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5486451/rejecting-oven

eskbanker

tomc239408934 said:
I was victim to a scam imitation website after clicking on an FB link, i ordered supposedly a set of garden furniture and after paying never received any confirmation, correspondence, or anything else. obviouly the furniture never arrived and the website disappeared a couple weeks later as is common with these scams it seems. As I have no documentation, the only "proof" i can present is that the items never arrived.

How would you prove that the items never arrived?  However, more to the point, how would you demonstrate that the 'merchant' had accepted an order and that a contract had been formed?

tomc239408934 said:
Surely there can not be a loophole that allowed cc companies to escape the section 75 legislation for situations like this if there is no documentation.

Perhaps worth noting that section 75 wasn't designed to protect credit card customers and was written in an era when high value purchases were often supported by bespoke financing arrangements, so its applicability to credit card purchases isn't really by design.  As above, it depends on proving that the merchant breached a contract (or misrepresented) and so the first step has to be establishing the terms of that contract.

tomc239408934 said:
Im amazed they aren't able to tell almost automatically for scams like this, as there must be a very large spike in chargeback requests for the alleged merchants. My making it so difficult to get the money back they only encourage the scammers.

I fear that you're completely misunderstanding the situation here!  Your card provider won't see any 'very large spike' because of some small time Facebook fraudsters, and section 75 wasn't designed to act as some sort of scam prevention service anyway....

tomc239408934 said:
Unfortunately Amex rejected the chargeback becasue i have no documentation. hsbc have told me they will consider section 75 automatically after chargeback investigation which is still ongoing 3 and 1/2 months later

Why are you pursuing both Amex and HSBC?  How many 'purchases' did you make with each?

born_again

tomc239408934 said:

eskbanker said:

tomc239408934 said:

I've tried the general disputes, ie chargeback approach, but they are not interested because i have no correspondence with the company, because it was a scam iimiation website, they just take your money and then disappear. 

tomc239408934 said:

retiredbanker1 said:

Firstly if you want advice - you will need to tell us what has happened.

Thank you but q was about my rights to appeal a section 75 claim directly to the courts .. other details are irrelevant and would just add confusion.

Up to you if that's the way you wish to approach it, but it's hardly surprising that experienced posters on here will try to add value by highlighting matters that may have escaped your attention.  My contribution would be to observe that a s75 claim requires you to demonstrate breach of contract or misrepresentation by the merchant, so the starting point would be to produce evidence of the contract, whether that's to the card company or ultimately to a court - if you couldn't do that to the extent needed to support a chargeback claim then how do you plan to do so to back up a s75 one?

I was victim to a scam imitation website after clicking on an FB link, i ordered supposedly a set of garden furniture and after paying never received any confirmation, correspondence, or anything else. obviouly the furniture never arrived and the website disappeared a couple weeks later as is common with these scams it seems. As I have no documentation, the only "proof" i can present is that the items never arrived. Surely there can not be a loophole that allowed cc companies to escape the section 75 legislation for situations like this if there is no documentation. Im amazed they aren't able to tell almost automatically for scams like this, as there must be a very large spike in chargeback requests for the alleged merchants. My making it so difficult to get the money back they only encourage the scammers.

You have the evidence of the payment in the form of a debit on your account.
That is enough for a chargeback in these types of cases.

As to CC picking up a spike. Odds on there are only a few cases, spread across the whole range of card providers.

Card providers are not police & can not do anything about these companies. All they can do is claim the money back via the system.

S75 relies on breach of contract or misrepresentation. With out proof on customer side, you can not prove either. CC is not going to payout.
Going to court is going to leave you in the same situation. Company will not be UK based & CC could well argue (depends on amount which has not been mentioned) that with no proof, that they have no case to answer.

tomc239408934

eskbanker said:

tomc239408934 said:
I was victim to a scam imitation website after clicking on an FB link, i ordered supposedly a set of garden furniture and after paying never received any confirmation, correspondence, or anything else. obviouly the furniture never arrived and the website disappeared a couple weeks later as is common with these scams it seems. As I have no documentation, the only "proof" i can present is that the items never arrived.

How would you prove that the items never arrived?  However, more to the point, how would you demonstrate that the 'merchant' had accepted an order and that a contract had been formed?

tomc239408934 said:
Surely there can not be a loophole that allowed cc companies to escape the section 75 legislation for situations like this if there is no documentation.

Perhaps worth noting that section 75 wasn't designed to protect credit card customers and was written in an era when high value purchases were often supported by bespoke financing arrangements, so its applicability to credit card purchases isn't really by design.  As above, it depends on proving that the merchant breached a contract (or misrepresented) and so the first step has to be establishing the terms of that contract.

tomc239408934 said:
Im amazed they aren't able to tell almost automatically for scams like this, as there must be a very large spike in chargeback requests for the alleged merchants. My making it so difficult to get the money back they only encourage the scammers.

I fear that you're completely misunderstanding the situation here!  Your card provider won't see any 'very large spike' because of some small time Facebook fraudsters, and section 75 wasn't designed to act as some sort of scam prevention service anyway....

tomc239408934 said:
Unfortunately Amex rejected the chargeback becasue i have no documentation. hsbc have told me they will consider section 75 automatically after chargeback investigation which is still ongoing 3 and 1/2 months later

Why are you pursuing both Amex and HSBC?  How many 'purchases' did you make with each?

I disagree on point 3, if a merchant is purely set up for a scam then id imagine for that merchant credit card companies woud recieve over 50pc chargebacks compared to what i imagine an average rate per merchant of less than 0.1pc .. id be amazed if in 2023 they don't have data anyalysis to spot these things.

Unfortunatley for my scam i first paid by Amex and it said the transaction had failed, so I assumed they didn't take amex, and so tried again on my hsbc mastercard

tomc239408934

eskbanker said:

tomc239408934 said:
I was victim to a scam imitation website after clicking on an FB link, i ordered supposedly a set of garden furniture and after paying never received any confirmation, correspondence, or anything else. obviouly the furniture never arrived and the website disappeared a couple weeks later as is common with these scams it seems. As I have no documentation, the only "proof" i can present is that the items never arrived.

How would you prove that the items never arrived?  However, more to the point, how would you demonstrate that the 'merchant' had accepted an order and that a contract had been formed?

tomc239408934 said:
Surely there can not be a loophole that allowed cc companies to escape the section 75 legislation for situations like this if there is no documentation.

Perhaps worth noting that section 75 wasn't designed to protect credit card customers and was written in an era when high value purchases were often supported by bespoke financing arrangements, so its applicability to credit card purchases isn't really by design.  As above, it depends on proving that the merchant breached a contract (or misrepresented) and so the first step has to be establishing the terms of that contract.

tomc239408934 said:
Im amazed they aren't able to tell almost automatically for scams like this, as there must be a very large spike in chargeback requests for the alleged merchants. My making it so difficult to get the money back they only encourage the scammers.

I fear that you're completely misunderstanding the situation here!  Your card provider won't see any 'very large spike' because of some small time Facebook fraudsters, and section 75 wasn't designed to act as some sort of scam prevention service anyway....

tomc239408934 said:
Unfortunately Amex rejected the chargeback becasue i have no documentation. hsbc have told me they will consider section 75 automatically after chargeback investigation which is still ongoing 3 and 1/2 months later

Why are you pursuing both Amex and HSBC?  How many 'purchases' did you make with each?

Also on your first point, as I understand it Section 75 is commonly used for "goods not arrived" .. but in every case it is essentially impossible to prove something didnt arrive unless one had a camera trained on the doorstep 24/7. So this clearly can't be a "get out"

tomc239408934

born_again said:

tomc239408934 said:

eskbanker said:

tomc239408934 said:

I've tried the general disputes, ie chargeback approach, but they are not interested because i have no correspondence with the company, because it was a scam iimiation website, they just take your money and then disappear. 

tomc239408934 said:

retiredbanker1 said:

Firstly if you want advice - you will need to tell us what has happened.

Thank you but q was about my rights to appeal a section 75 claim directly to the courts .. other details are irrelevant and would just add confusion.

Up to you if that's the way you wish to approach it, but it's hardly surprising that experienced posters on here will try to add value by highlighting matters that may have escaped your attention.  My contribution would be to observe that a s75 claim requires you to demonstrate breach of contract or misrepresentation by the merchant, so the starting point would be to produce evidence of the contract, whether that's to the card company or ultimately to a court - if you couldn't do that to the extent needed to support a chargeback claim then how do you plan to do so to back up a s75 one?

I was victim to a scam imitation website after clicking on an FB link, i ordered supposedly a set of garden furniture and after paying never received any confirmation, correspondence, or anything else. obviouly the furniture never arrived and the website disappeared a couple weeks later as is common with these scams it seems. As I have no documentation, the only "proof" i can present is that the items never arrived. Surely there can not be a loophole that allowed cc companies to escape the section 75 legislation for situations like this if there is no documentation. Im amazed they aren't able to tell almost automatically for scams like this, as there must be a very large spike in chargeback requests for the alleged merchants. My making it so difficult to get the money back they only encourage the scammers.

You have the evidence of the payment in the form of a debit on your account.
That is enough for a chargeback in these types of cases.

As to CC picking up a spike. Odds on there are only a few cases, spread across the whole range of card providers.

Card providers are not police & can not do anything about these companies. All they can do is claim the money back via the system.

S75 relies on breach of contract or misrepresentation. With out proof on customer side, you can not prove either. CC is not going to payout.
Going to court is going to leave you in the same situation. Company will not be UK based & CC could well argue (depends on amount which has not been mentioned) that with no proof, that they have no case to answer.

yep but unfortunatley amex have said they won't do chargeback because no docuemntation. the call handler advised me to do a section 75.  ridiculous attitutde for a card i pay 250 a year for which im now going to cancel anyway.

eskbanker

tomc239408934 said:

eskbanker said:

tomc239408934 said:
Im amazed they aren't able to tell almost automatically for scams like this, as there must be a very large spike in chargeback requests for the alleged merchants. My making it so difficult to get the money back they only encourage the scammers.

I fear that you're completely misunderstanding the situation here!  Your card provider won't see any 'very large spike' because of some small time Facebook fraudsters, and section 75 wasn't designed to act as some sort of scam prevention service anyway....

I disagree on point 3, if a merchant is purely set up for a scam then id imagine for that merchant credit card companies woud recieve over 50pc chargebacks compared to what i imagine an average rate per merchant of less than 0.1pc .. id be amazed if in 2023 they don't have data anyalysis to spot these things.

But I still don't think you're understanding the role these card companies play - even if your card provider spotted a higher than usual successful chargeback or s75 rate for transactions with a specific merchant (out of the millions they route payments to), they're not actually in a position to unilaterally act on that, unless they were to go nuclear and prevent their customers from dealing with the merchant, but I'm not aware of that happening, except perhaps by exception with questionable entire categories such as crypto, and I'm not sure that their agreements with Visa/Mastercard would permit discriminatory action against individual merchants anyway.

Having said that, the merchant's card acquirer is more likely to be in a position to spot excessive chargebacks (but not s75s) and I believe could hold the merchant in breach, but no doubt that would take plenty of time, and they'd have disappeared over the horizon long before that panned out.

tomc239408934 said:

eskbanker said:

tomc239408934 said:
I was victim to a scam imitation website after clicking on an FB link, i ordered supposedly a set of garden furniture and after paying never received any confirmation, correspondence, or anything else. obviouly the furniture never arrived and the website disappeared a couple weeks later as is common with these scams it seems. As I have no documentation, the only "proof" i can present is that the items never arrived.

How would you prove that the items never arrived?  However, more to the point, how would you demonstrate that the 'merchant' had accepted an order and that a contract had been formed?

Also on your first point, as I understand it Section 75 is commonly used for "goods not arrived" .. but in every case it is essentially impossible to prove something didnt arrive unless one had a camera trained on the doorstep 24/7. So this clearly can't be a "get out"

Yes, that was my point, that you can't prove a negative, although sometimes the onus is on the merchant to prove that something was delivered.  However, the more significant issue here is the second part, i.e. demonstrating the existence (and terms) of a contract, rather than just a payment....