Section 75 - I don’t understand!

greenplants14

Hi there,
I have some questions about section 75 claims for faulty goods. can any of you experts help?

- do I approach the bank or the type of card eg Santander or MasterCard?

I don’t really understand exactly what the bank then does…
- does the bank then assess the claim and decide to pay out based on what they think the retailer should have done?
- OR do the bank approach the retailer for evidence and try to repair the money from them if they think the claim is valid?
- if the latter, can the retailer then come after me/sue me to reclaim the money?

Thank you so much!

Grumpy_chap

greenplants14 said:

Hi there,
I have some questions about section 75 claims for faulty goods. can any of you experts help?

- do I approach the bank or the type of card eg Santander or MasterCard?

I don’t really understand exactly what the bank then does…
- does the bank then assess the claim and decide to pay out based on what they think the retailer should have done?
- OR do the bank approach the retailer for evidence and try to repair the money from them if they think the claim is valid?
- if the latter, can the retailer then come after me/sue me to reclaim the money?

Thank you so much!

S75 is a process by which the CC is jointly liable with the retailer for breach of contract / failure to follow your consumer rights.
You would need to raise the claim via the CC (your card issuer, not direct to Mastercard / VISA) and the CC will undertake an investigation before making any decision as to the validity of your claim.
Usually, the CC will require that you have followed the retailers complaints process first and that was exhausted without reaching a fair outcome.
If the S75 claims results in your receiving a refund from the CC, then the retailer cannot pursue you to recover the money.  You may have to surrender the item purchased to the CC or the retailer.
S75 process is not quick.

You need to be aware that the CC may, instead of following the S75 process, consider a chargeback.  Chargeback means you are refunded your money and the CC deducts this from the retailer's account.  It is the modern-day equivalent of stopping the cheque.  The retailer may then pursue you to recover the funds.

It may help if you provide more details about what your purchase was, what the issue is that concerns you and what resolution the retailer has offered.  
Not every fault is a breach of contract or contravenes consumer rights.

greenplants14

Thank you

It’s a faulty car booster seat. I bought it in January, a fault became apparent in June. The retailer repaired it at that point but the same fault has recurred. The warranty says it will only be repaired if it is due to a manufacturing fault.

It failed again a few days ago. I asked for a refund on the basis consumer law permits one attempt at repair which has now failed. The retailer now says I must have broken it on both occasions. It is worth mentioning they make this assertion having not seen or inspected the item. They have refused a refund but have however offered a further repair (I have this in writing). They did also verbally offer to replace the entire product (they didn’t put this in writing so assume that is rescinded).

There was no suggestion that I had misused this item until the point I tried to exercise my rights and stated they are in breach of consumer law. I feel like we have reached a stalemate, hence pursing a S75.

Grumpy_chap

What is the nature of the fault?
There is a difference between something cosmetic and something that is safety critical.

Why didn't you simply accept the complete replacement when that was offered?  

I will also request that this thread is moved to a more appropriate board where it will gain more traction and be noticed by those with better knowledge.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6544802/faulty-repair#latest

Original thread.

Has retailer refused to do anything in relation to this other than repair?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Same OP as here for back story

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6544802/faulty-repair#latest

OP the bank are likely to ask you to prove the "fault" (or rather prove that the goods do not conform to the contract in terms of safety and/or durability) which will require an independent inspection, as per your other thread I'm not sure who would do such a thing, maybe others have some ideas. 

eskbanker

Grumpy_chap said:
Usually, the CC will require that you have followed the retailers complaints process first and that was exhausted without reaching a fair outcome.

The creditor has no legal right to insist on this for s75, as they're jointly and severally liable to the debtor:

It might be easier to first complain to the retailer in some instances – for example if you're looking for a repair or a replacement rather than a refund – but you don't have to.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/#how

Okell

@greenplants14 -  the real point about s75 is that it gives you the same legal right to sue your credit card provider as you have to sue the trader, if the trader is in breach of contract.

s75 didn't create or prescribe any particular processes or procedures for banks and credit card providers to follow in dealing with s75 claims.  In fact I don't think the legislation ever imagined that credit providers would set up their own systems for dealing with what became known as s75 claims.  All s75 says is that if a consumer has "... any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable... " to the consumer.  All that means is that if you have the right to sue the trader, you also have the right to sue the credit card provider.  It doesn't tell you how to claim against the bank/card provider and it doesn't tell them how to deal with it.

Banks and card providers obviously decided to set up their own processes to deal with customers coming to them with s75 complaints, but I suspect each bank and card provider deals with them slightly differently.

What will be common between them is that it might be a lengthy process and in theory you might need to satisfy them to the same level of proof as in a court.

As others have said, there is a separate procedure operated by banks and card providers called "chargeback".  To my mind it's inferior to a s75 claim.

Unlike s75 a chargeback is not a legal right and even if your bank grants you a chargeback the trader can still sue you for the money.  That shouldn't happen under s75.

If your bank treats any claim you make as a chargeback and it's rejected, you need to make sure they treat it as a s75 claim - if you think you have a valid claim

Ultimately, if you make a s75 claim against your card provider and you think they have wrongly rejected it, you have the option to sue them, or the trader, or both of them.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

Ultimately, if you make a s75 claim against your card provider and you think they have wrongly rejected it, you have the option to sue them, or the trader, or both of them.

Added bonus of S75 is the bank is regulated and would want to avoid an official complaint so are more likely to treat customers properly.  

born_again

Ultimately, failing to try & deal with retailer can make it very hard to argue any breech of contract.

eskbanker

born_again said:

Ultimately, failing to try & deal with retailer can make it very hard to argue any breech of contract.

Not convinced that's a viable rule of thumb, at least where the breach itself is distinct from potential attempts to remedy it - what sort of scenarios do you have in mind?