Section 75 loophole, savy, or Plain Fraud

f.castle

Hello Martin,

I know you are an ethical guy so I reckon you will ask me to think about the ethics of this.

I was succesful in a valid section 75 claim for a product I bought (C.£140). The credit card company reimbursed me, as the retailer did not. I succesfully argued the item was not as described/ advertised falsely. No replacement existed.

The retailer did not ask for the item back.

The retailer has not updated the item description.

If I bought the item again, and made the same complaint, I think I would be succesful.  The retailer would likely not ask for the item back, and I would get the money back.

I might want to sell the item, or donate it.

Is this a loophole? This does not mean it is not illegal, but ethically has issues. I do not know it is strong enough to be defined as Fraud.

What are your thoughts?

Tony5896

So you buy something you now know to be wrongly described and now know the seller will not ask for a return in order to sell it and get your cash back and get cash from your buyer …

I would consider it gaining money by deception/ deceiving people .. 

fraud in my book .. 

marcia_

Agree this would be fraudulent 

user1977

Not sure why you think Martin actually reads or writes on the forums, but I'll answer in his place.

Of course it would be fraud - in what way do you think it doesn't tick all the boxes of fraud?

And why are you convinced the company would do business with you again, or turn a blind eye to multiple such items being retained by you?

born_again

f.castle said:

Hello Martin,

I know you are an ethical guy so I reckon you will ask me to think about the ethics of this.

I was succesful in a valid section 75 claim for a product I bought (C.£140). The credit card company reimbursed me, as the retailer did not. I succesfully argued the item was not as described/ advertised falsely. No replacement existed.

The retailer did not ask for the item back.

The retailer has not updated the item description.

If I bought the item again, and made the same complaint, I think I would be succesful.  The retailer would likely not ask for the item back, and I would get the money back.

I might want to sell the item, or donate it.

Is this a loophole? This does not mean it is not illegal, but ethically has issues. I do not know it is strong enough to be defined as Fraud.

What are your thoughts?

I bet this was a chargeback... CC would not refund C£140 off their own bat, if they can reclaim it.

Got a link to said item?

Grumpy_chap

f.castle said:

Hello Martin,

I know you are an ethical guy so I reckon you will ask me to think about the ethics of this.

I was succesful in a valid section 75 claim for a product I bought (C.£140). The credit card company reimbursed me, as the retailer did not. I succesfully argued the item was not as described/ advertised falsely. No replacement existed.

The retailer did not ask for the item back.

The retailer has not updated the item description.

If I bought the item again, and made the same complaint, I think I would be succesful.  The retailer would likely not ask for the item back, and I would get the money back.

I might want to sell the item, or donate it.

Is this a loophole? This does not mean it is not illegal, but ethically has issues. I do not know it is strong enough to be defined as Fraud.

What are your thoughts?

This is clearly and obviously fraudulent.
And you know it.

What would happen may well depend on the exact detail of whether your money back was processed as Chargeback (where the CC deducts the funds from the retailer) or S75 (where the CC is liable and suffered the loss).

If processed as a Chargeback, it would be the retailer who would decide whether to ask for the return of the product, or not.  The retailer can also pursue non-payment against you through the courts if they chose.
A repeat order and repeat compliant on the same grounds may well be contested that YOU were aware of exactly what the product was - the supplier will also quite likely block your account from future purchases.

If processed as S75, the item now belongs to the CC and it is their choice whether to ask for the item or not.
A repeat purchase and complaint would also likely be contested on the grounds that YOU were aware of exactly what the product was.  The CC would almost certainly close your account and report to the credit agencies and raise a fraud marker (CIFAS).

Either route might see you prosecuted for fraud.

EDIT:  Is it this Lego kit that you are referring to?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6339049/section-75-toy-not-as-described/p1

f.castle

user1977 said:

Not sure why you think Martin actually reads or writes on the forums, but I'll answer in his place.

Of course it would be fraud - in what way do you think it doesn't tick all the boxes of fraud?

And why are you convinced the company would do business with you again, or turn a blind eye to multiple such items being retained by you?

I’ll take your stance and ask rhetoric questions and statements.
 

Not sure why you don’t think he does read these.

on what way do you think it isn’t fraud given the retailer knows it’s not described properly and they did nothing?

Do you think the retailer checks every single transaction?

thanks for answering in his place.

f.castle

Grumpy_chap said:

f.castle said:

Hello Martin,

I know you are an ethical guy so I reckon you will ask me to think about the ethics of this.

I was succesful in a valid section 75 claim for a product I bought (C.£140). The credit card company reimbursed me, as the retailer did not. I succesfully argued the item was not as described/ advertised falsely. No replacement existed.

The retailer did not ask for the item back.

The retailer has not updated the item description.

If I bought the item again, and made the same complaint, I think I would be succesful.  The retailer would likely not ask for the item back, and I would get the money back.

I might want to sell the item, or donate it.

Is this a loophole? This does not mean it is not illegal, but ethically has issues. I do not know it is strong enough to be defined as Fraud.

What are your thoughts?

This is clearly and obviously fraudulent.
And you know it.

What would happen may well depend on the exact detail of whether your money back was processed as Chargeback (where the CC deducts the funds from the retailer) or S75 (where the CC is liable and suffered the loss).

If processed as a Chargeback, it would be the retailer who would decide whether to ask for the return of the product, or not.  The retailer can also pursue non-payment against you through the courts if they chose.
A repeat order and repeat compliant on the same grounds may well be contested that YOU were aware of exactly what the product was - the supplier will also quite likely block your account from future purchases.

If processed as S75, the item now belongs to the CC and it is their choice whether to ask for the item or not.
A repeat purchase and complaint would also likely be contested on the grounds that YOU were aware of exactly what the product was.  The CC would almost certainly close your account and report to the credit agencies and raise a fraud marker (CIFAS).

Either route might see you prosecuted for fraud.

EDIT:  Is it this Lego kit that you are referring to?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6339049/section-75-toy-not-as-described/p1

Yes. Really helpful and insightful reply. Thanks so much, very informative.

Pollycat

f.castle said:

user1977 said:

Not sure why you think Martin actually reads or writes on the forums, but I'll answer in his place.

Of course it would be fraud - in what way do you think it doesn't tick all the boxes of fraud?

And why are you convinced the company would do business with you again, or turn a blind eye to multiple such items being retained by you?

I’ll take your stance and ask rhetoric questions and statements.
 

Not sure why you don’t think he does read these.

on what way do you think it isn’t fraud given the retailer knows it’s not described properly and they did nothing?

Do you think the retailer checks every single transaction?

thanks for answering in his place.

Do you know how many posts are made on this website every day?

He has much bigger fish to fry.

On 21 September 2012, Moneysupermarket Group took over the operations of MoneySavingExpert.com. In order to preserve the editorial independence of MoneySavingExpert.com, Martin Lewis and MoneySupermarket.com agreed an editorial code as part of the sale.

On 22 September 2015, Martin Lewis moved from Editor-in-Chief to Chairman of MoneySavingExpert.com. The Editor-in-Chief reports to Martin directly and is responsible to him for ensuring that: <snip>

You can read more here:
The MoneySavingExpert.com Editorial Code

I'd guess he would only be aware of something posted if it was flagged up to him by one of the moderators reporting to the editor-in-chief.
I'm not sure your question will be sufficiently interesting for that to happen. 

RefluentBeans

Pollycat said:

f.castle said:

user1977 said:

Not sure why you think Martin actually reads or writes on the forums, but I'll answer in his place.

Of course it would be fraud - in what way do you think it doesn't tick all the boxes of fraud?

And why are you convinced the company would do business with you again, or turn a blind eye to multiple such items being retained by you?

I’ll take your stance and ask rhetoric questions and statements.
 

Not sure why you don’t think he does read these.

on what way do you think it isn’t fraud given the retailer knows it’s not described properly and they did nothing?

Do you think the retailer checks every single transaction?

thanks for answering in his place.

Do you know how many posts are made on this website every day?

He has much bigger fish to fry.

On 21 September 2012, Moneysupermarket Group took over the operations of MoneySavingExpert.com. In order to preserve the editorial independence of MoneySavingExpert.com, Martin Lewis and MoneySupermarket.com agreed an editorial code as part of the sale.

On 22 September 2015, Martin Lewis moved from Editor-in-Chief to Chairman of MoneySavingExpert.com. The Editor-in-Chief reports to Martin directly and is responsible to him for ensuring that: <snip>

You can read more here:
The MoneySavingExpert.com Editorial Code

I'd guess he would only be aware of something posted if it was flagged up to him by one of the moderators reporting to the editor-in-chief.
I'm not sure your question will be sufficiently interesting for that to happen. 

Agreed - asking if being fraudulent is okay is probably not going to get his attention and I don’t think he’d want to touch it with a barge pole. 

OP - if you knowingly purchase something that is of poor description to just abuse the return system and claim back whilst also selling the product on, why would you think that isn’t fraud? 

I also would think if you purchase a product with the explicit intention of selling it on, then that makes you a retailer, and so any sale you make you’d be liable for the descriptions and making sure the product is of sufficient quality. That’s just my opinion though. 

eskbanker

His profile on here shows that he last logged on to the forum last July, and has made a grand total of one post in over five years (on a thread I'd started, as it happens!) despite being a prolific contributor earlier in the history of this site and his career, so yes, anyone thinking he now personally monitors what's posted on here is kidding themselves....