Section 75 refund - now service provider is threatening me with Court

PixieE

Hello
I had a leak and asked a plumber to fix it. He didn’t. Long story, but I got my upfront fee back via Section 75. Now they are threatening to sue me. For £120.
Citizens Advice Bureau wasn’t helpful.
Any advice please?
thank you

la531983

Do you have proof he didnt fix it?

As you are finding out, S75 isnt a silver bullet.

PixieE

la531983 said:

Do you have proof he didnt fix it?

As you are finding out, S75 isnt a silver bullet.

Yes. I have proof. They also forged my signature to show i ‘accepted’ the work. They are criminals

molerat

Unlikely it was s75 as the card provider would be taking the hit, more likely a chargeback which the plumber could have challenged.  If you have proof that the work was not completed and it is clear that the signature is forged just wait it out until they serve court papers.  Most likely they are just trying to pressure you into paying.

Grumpy_chap

PixieE said:

Hello
I had a leak and asked a plumber to fix it. He didn’t. Long story, but I got my upfront fee back via Section 75. Now they are threatening to sue me. For £120.
Citizens Advice Bureau wasn’t helpful.
Any advice please?
thank you

How long did the S75 process take and what investigation did the CC undertake?

If the refund process was quick, it is more likely that this was a chargeback which is more like just stopping the cheque.

In what way did the plumber not fix the leak?  Did they never turn up?  Did they do some work but unsuccessfully?

martinbainbridge1975

do you have a legal cover on your home insurance - if so maybe worth calling them.

if this trader has social media accounts i would post on their what they are doing, never like negative reviews 

PixieE

Grumpy_chap said:

PixieE said:

Hello
I had a leak and asked a plumber to fix it. He didn’t. Long story, but I got my upfront fee back via Section 75. Now they are threatening to sue me. For £120.
Citizens Advice Bureau wasn’t helpful.
Any advice please?
thank you

How long did the S75 process take and what investigation did the CC undertake?

If the refund process was quick, it is more likely that this was a chargeback which is more like just stopping the cheque.

In what way did the plumber not fix the leak?  Did they never turn up?  Did they do some work but unsuccessfully?

It took a couple of months. They challenged it and we both submitted evidence. But it does look like a charge back as they treat me like a debtor.

he turned up, opened the door to the airing cupboard and said ‘yeah that’s all good now mate’,  because my husband had managed to switch one valve (there were 2…  off. If he’d looked he’d seen the other one and would have switched that off.

PixieE

PixieE said:

Grumpy_chap said:

PixieE said:

Hello
I had a leak and asked a plumber to fix it. He didn’t. Long story, but I got my upfront fee back via Section 75. Now they are threatening to sue me. For £120.
Citizens Advice Bureau wasn’t helpful.
Any advice please?
thank you

How long did the S75 process take and what investigation did the CC undertake?

If the refund process was quick, it is more likely that this was a chargeback which is more like just stopping the cheque.

In what way did the plumber not fix the leak?  Did they never turn up?  Did they do some work but unsuccessfully?

It took a couple of months. They challenged it and we both submitted evidence. But it does look like a charge back as they treat me like a debtor.

he turned up, opened the door to the airing cupboard and said ‘yeah that’s all good now mate’,  because my husband had managed to switch one valve (there were 2…  off. If he’d looked he’d seen the other one and would have switched that off.

Sorry, should have said I tried to call him out again and they said that he would come under their work guarantee scheme, but he phoned me himself to say he wasn’t coming out again and was mildly threatening on the phone.
ive been through their complaints process only for them to lie to me, hence the charge back/section 75…

DullGreyGuy

PixieE said:

Grumpy_chap said:

PixieE said:

Hello
I had a leak and asked a plumber to fix it. He didn’t. Long story, but I got my upfront fee back via Section 75. Now they are threatening to sue me. For £120.
Citizens Advice Bureau wasn’t helpful.
Any advice please?
thank you

How long did the S75 process take and what investigation did the CC undertake?

If the refund process was quick, it is more likely that this was a chargeback which is more like just stopping the cheque.

In what way did the plumber not fix the leak?  Did they never turn up?  Did they do some work but unsuccessfully?

It took a couple of months. They challenged it and we both submitted evidence. But it does look like a charge back as they treat me like a debtor.

he turned up, opened the door to the airing cupboard and said ‘yeah that’s all good now mate’,  because my husband had managed to switch one valve (there were 2…  off. If he’d looked he’d seen the other one and would have switched that off.

That isn't a S75 claim then, its been processed as a Chargeback 

With a chargeback the money is clawed back from the vendor, both parties submit their evidence and either your bank or the network (visa, Mastercard etc) decide based on the basic rules who wins. Typically takes 2-3 months to resolve. As the merchant is out of pocket at the end it would be them to pursue you via the courts if they disagree with the decision. 

A S75 doesn't involve the vendor at all. The money is paid from your banks own pocket so it doesn't impact the vendor and they'd have no grounds to pursue you. 


As to advice? It's up to you. You can call his bluff and let him take it to the Small Track Claims if you feel he didnt render the services. Others can help you on how to write your defence/witness statement if he takes that route. Obv if you go this way and lose you'd be paying the court fees on top of the £120. Alternatively you may decide £120 isn't worth the time and effort so pay them or at least negotiate something to cover at least the call out or such

TheBanker

I don't think there's anything to prevent a bank using the Chargeback scheme to resolve a Section 75 claim. Section 75 makes the bank jointly liabe with the retailer for a breach of contract. If the bank settles the claim with the customer, this creates a debt for the retailer to the bank, which can legitimatley be recovered by the bank.

The end result being that the retailer has not been paid. The plumber is suggesting he will try to recover the value of what is now an unpaid invoice through the courts. Hopefully the evidence you used with the bank will be sufficient to show the court that the invoice is null and void as the contract was not fulfilled. 

DullGreyGuy

TheBanker said:

I don't think there's anything to prevent a bank using the Chargeback scheme to resolve a Section 75 claim. Section 75 makes the bank jointly liabe with the retailer for a breach of contract. If the bank settles the claim with the customer, this creates a debt for the retailer to the bank, which can legitimatley be recovered by the bank.

The end result being that the retailer has not been paid. The plumber is suggesting he will try to recover the value of what is now an unpaid invoice through the courts. Hopefully the evidence you used with the bank will be sufficient to show the court that the invoice is null and void as the contract was not fulfilled. 

Most banks allow you to raise a "dispute" rather than for you to say if it should be handled as a chargeback or S75. Because there is a time limit on chargebacks but not S75 most will attempt a chargeback first because if it fails it can then fallback onto S75 whereas waiting months for the S75 to be decided would often time bar a chargeback after. 

Chargebacks follow the prescriptive rules of the card network, cannot claim to know them all in depth but fundamentally it doesn't seem right that the bank would spend months doing a S75, payout the OP out of their own pocket and then raise a Chargeback to try and get their own money back. Ignoring the time limit aspect and the inefficiency of doing it that way it just doest fit with the principles of chargeback. 

S75 does give the bank subrogated rights to recover from the merchant but other forums members on here that work in banking state its exceptionally rare that banks do attempt to do so, event when they payout millions for a common problem. I could see it being more common where the supplier happens to bank with the same banks as many accounts T&Cs allow banks to take out their losses but the members here say its less likely than I'd think.

This case however is much more straightforward. Its been processed as a Chargeback hence the vendor not the bank funded the refund.