Section 75 loophole, savy, or Plain Fraud

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

Is down to the bank really.
I know some customers have sent stuff back, but the issue is then what to do with it.
One thing that a overhaul of S75 could look at. As in reality if a customer is getting paid out (such as this case) should they be keeping the item, as clearly they are not happy with it 🤷‍♀️

I assume for a bank to set up a system of selling random, likely broken goods, it isn't practical. 

born_again

ArbitraryRandom said:

I wonder (again @born_again maybe able to clarify) if with sufficiently high value items the card issuer might take action against the seller? 

Do banks take out insurance for such things or do they self insure (covering expected losses via charges on transactions)? 

No insurance. We all pay for it 😒Or as they like to say. "It's all costed in to the overall cost of running credit cards"
Never known a legal action against a retailer (not to say there has not been). The shear legal costs would be massive. banks legal do not come cheap.


Given theses would be faulty or such products, you could not even give them away...

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

This is not something that should get to the position of Chargeback or S75 given there are simpler consumer rights to follow.

Just to be pedantic, a S75 claim is a consumer rights claim, just one against the credit provider rather than the trader.   

Return under 14 days "change of mind" seems far simpler than S75 so is a "simpler consumer right".
The whole scenario proposed by the OP is one that fails to use simple solutions.

But that requires the consumer to pay the return postage and suffer a reduced refund for diminished value (both subject to information requirements).

Except the OP states Smyths Toys and their website says free returns to store or free returns by DHL for items less than 20kg weight.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

This is not something that should get to the position of Chargeback or S75 given there are simpler consumer rights to follow.

Just to be pedantic, a S75 claim is a consumer rights claim, just one against the credit provider rather than the trader.   

Return under 14 days "change of mind" seems far simpler than S75 so is a "simpler consumer right".
The whole scenario proposed by the OP is one that fails to use simple solutions.

But that requires the consumer to pay the return postage and suffer a reduced refund for diminished value (both subject to information requirements).

Except the OP states Smyths Toys and their website says free returns to store or free returns by DHL for items less than 20kg weight.

Thanks @Grumpy_chap, that's actually very generous of them Although it is a shame they are yet another company that doesn't comply with the regs.

I had assumed OP had opened and built the Lego set though? 

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I had assumed OP had opened and built the Lego set though? 

The first Lego set may have been opened and assembled.

In this scheme, though, the idea that has been put forward seems to be

• buy more Lego sets
• decide they are the same as the first (which differs from the description, according to the OP)
• then try to reject under "not as described" with the assumption that Smyths Toys will refuse
• then claim "not as described" from the credit card S75
• receive 75 refund
• expect the credit card not ask for the Lego to be returned
• then sell the second model
• keep the money

Given this would be the second time at looking at the product for the OP, one assumes they would be able to identify whatever the criteria are for their assessment of "not as described" quickly and without requiring the full kit to be assembled.
Indeed, I assume that (for the proposed reselling step), the value is maximised if the Lego kits are unopened.

I remain surprised, given what the scheme seems to be, that there are contributors to the thread that seem so supportive of the OP's plan.  I cannot see anything in the scheme "savy loophole" that is not actually a "plain fraud" as the OP asked.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:that there are contributors to the thread that seem so supportive of the OP's plan. 

Just to clarify I'm not supporting OP's plan one way or the other, sometimes people looking for help on here use the terms scam, rip off, fraud and are often told it isn't, I'm just asking the question from our side of the fence.

ArbitraryRandom points out state of mind is included under "false", which in itself is odd as our general nature is to get ahead at the expense of others, something that could be viewed simply as survival of the fittest, I guess that's why it's coupled with the measure of a reasonable person. The issue with this is the hypocrisy present in pretty much all of us which is why I tend to stick to the facts rather than passing moral judgement on a topic, with that in mind the purpose of the question was simply to learn the facts of the law. 

The working out is often more important than the answer as it shows the answer was formulated correctly rather than correct by chance. 

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I had assumed OP had opened and built the Lego set though? 

The first Lego set may have been opened .... without requiring the full kit to be assembled.

Yes I see what you mean, it would be easier to send the 2nd one back unopened under change of mind given in this instance the retailer is covering the cost of return  

born_again

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I had assumed OP had opened and built the Lego set though? 

The first Lego set may have been opened and assembled.

In this scheme, though, the idea that has been put forward seems to be

• buy more Lego sets
• decide they are the same as the first (which differs from the description, according to the OP)
• then try to reject under "not as described" with the assumption that Smyths Toys will refuse
• then claim "not as described" from the credit card S75
• receive 75 refund
• expect the credit card not ask for the Lego to be returned
• then sell the second model
• keep the money

Given this would be the second time at looking at the product for the OP, one assumes they would be able to identify whatever the criteria are for their assessment of "not as described" quickly and without requiring the full kit to be assembled.
Indeed, I assume that (for the proposed reselling step), the value is maximised if the Lego kits are unopened.

I remain surprised, given what the scheme seems to be, that there are contributors to the thread that seem so supportive of the OP's plan.  I cannot see anything in the scheme "savy loophole" that is not actually a "plain fraud" as the OP asked.

Don't worry that would not get passed bank, & is likely to see a 60 day account closure letter. 
Total breech of trust.

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Yes I see what you mean, it would be easier to send the 2nd one back unopened under change of mind given in this instance the retailer is covering the cost of return  

That was suggested upthread and it was noted that would not achieve what the OP desires, which is to keep the second item also:

f.castle said:

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.

eskbanker

born_again said:

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I had assumed OP had opened and built the Lego set though? 

The first Lego set may have been opened and assembled.

In this scheme, though, the idea that has been put forward seems to be

• buy more Lego sets
• decide they are the same as the first (which differs from the description, according to the OP)
• then try to reject under "not as described" with the assumption that Smyths Toys will refuse
• then claim "not as described" from the credit card S75
• receive 75 refund
• expect the credit card not ask for the Lego to be returned
• then sell the second model
• keep the money

Given this would be the second time at looking at the product for the OP, one assumes they would be able to identify whatever the criteria are for their assessment of "not as described" quickly and without requiring the full kit to be assembled.
Indeed, I assume that (for the proposed reselling step), the value is maximised if the Lego kits are unopened.

I remain surprised, given what the scheme seems to be, that there are contributors to the thread that seem so supportive of the OP's plan.  I cannot see anything in the scheme "savy loophole" that is not actually a "plain fraud" as the OP asked.

Don't worry that would not get passed bank, & is likely to see a 60 day account closure letter. 
Total breech of trust.

You're assuming that it would be the same bank both times?

Okell

Grumpy_chap said:

... I remain surprised, given what the scheme seems to be, that there are contributors to the thread that seem so supportive of the OP's plan.  I cannot see anything in the scheme "savy loophole" that is not actually a "plain fraud" as the OP asked.

I'm surprised that you think there are contributors that seem "so supportive of the OP's plan".  Who are they?  I've re-read this thread and seen nothing that supports the OP's plan.

I think everybody is agreed that the OP's plan is morally wrong, unethical and dishonest (probably).  But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a criminal offence.

The first three responses (plus a later response from yourself) to the OP told him that his plan was clearly fraudulent and that he would be committing the offence of fraud.  That claim crops up from time to time on this board and usually what people really mean is that something is - or appears to them to be - dishonest.  But that doesn't mean it necessarily amounts to the criminal offence of fraud.  And that's the point I was making.

Despite the CPS guidance linked to earlier, I'm still not convinced that the OP would be committing fraud as I don't understand what false representation he would be making - implied or otherwise.  But that's not to say that he wouldn't necessarily be committing some other offence - just that I'm not sure he's committing fraud.

Two other things have also been pointed out to the OP that certainly don't support his plan.  First that he would most likely find himself in the position of an involuntary bailee with all that that entails, and second that he can't be certain that the bank or the retailer won't demand return of the goods.  The fact they haven't done so once before doesn't mean they won't in future.

(He's also been told that his card provider will see through it and quite possibly cancel his account.  But that's not a point I made so I don't mention it above)