Section 75 or Chargeback advise?

Belenus

born_again said:

Suffice to say success rate is very good.
S75 is down to proving your case of breach of contract or misrepresentation. So you need to prove retailer has breeched them.

Do you mean they have trousered the money?

DullGreyGuy

bery_451 said:
From Freedom of Information Act do you know the statistics of the % for the success rate for both chargebacks & S75? I am more likely to fail on S75 because it is not in the card issuer shareholders interest to issue refunds to card holders out of their own pockets correct?

FIA only applies to governmental and public bodies not banks which are private companies. 

Chargeback is intentionally a simple process with basic but clear rules. EG a non-delivery claim will fail if the merchant can produce confirmation from the courier that it was delivered even if you can point out the "photo evidence" isn't of your front door. At the same time, many merchants feel the chargeback process is loaded against them and so dont defend. 

S75 is a statutory process and deals with the full complexities of real life. It has its own rules though too like the minimum £100 item value and the need for the unbroken Debtor-Creditor-Supplier triangle which people often dont understand and so cases fail when travel agents or Amazon Market place are involved breaking the triangle. 

bery_451

born_again said:

bery_451 said:

born_again said:

To be honest, a video may not be accepted as evidence by card provider as there is not way to upload such evidence to Mastercard.
So you may need 3rd party to confirm.
But without knowing full details of what the issue is, which is why it is better to go direct to card provider & ask. 

You could be out of time on a chargeback as it is 120 days from payment in most cases. There are a few exceptions.

TBH. If no chargeback right or it fails it should go straight to S75 (but that is how we work) other may not play the same.

Can the video be sent to the card issuer contact us email address?

Can I choose s75 over chargeback or chargeback application has to be initiated 1st?

What is accepted as 3rd parties to most card issuers?

From Freedom of Information Act do you know the statistics of the % for the success rate for both chargebacks & S75? I am more likely to fail on S75 because it is not in the card issuer shareholders interest to issue refunds to card holders out of their own pockets correct?

S75 is down to proving your case of breach of contract or misrepresentation. So you need to prove retailer has breeched them.

Okay is a company not respecting their 12 months warranty policy a breach of contract from them or misrepresentation eligible for S75?

bery_451

DullGreyGuy said:

bery_451 said:
From Freedom of Information Act do you know the statistics of the % for the success rate for both chargebacks & S75? I am more likely to fail on S75 because it is not in the card issuer shareholders interest to issue refunds to card holders out of their own pockets correct?

S75 is a statutory process and deals with the full complexities of real life. It has its own rules though too like the minimum £100 item value and the need for the unbroken Debtor-Creditor-Supplier triangle which people often dont understand and so cases fail when travel agents or Amazon Market place are involved breaking the triangle. 

What do you mean of this Triangle? The 1 at the top of the triangle is the supplier or creditor?

eskbanker

bery_451 said:

born_again said:

S75 is down to proving your case of breach of contract or misrepresentation. So you need to prove retailer has breeched them.

Okay is a company not respecting their 12 months warranty policy a breach of contract from them or misrepresentation eligible for S75?

Forget about misrepresentation, as this is the narrow definition of the term as applicable to contract law rather than the more casual vernacular one, as explained in another recent thread at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81092607/#Comment_81092607

So, it falls to you to demonstrate breach of contract....

bery_451 said:

DullGreyGuy said:
S75 is a statutory process and deals with the full complexities of real life. It has its own rules though too like the minimum £100 item value and the need for the unbroken Debtor-Creditor-Supplier triangle which people often dont understand and so cases fail when travel agents or Amazon Market place are involved breaking the triangle. 

What do you mean of this Triangle? The 1 at the top of the triangle is the supplier or creditor?

You're in danger of overthinking all of this - there need to be relationships between debtor (you), creditor (card company) and supplier, as opposed to transactions involving additional parties, but there's no notion of who's at the 'top of the triangle'!

DullGreyGuy

bery_451 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

bery_451 said:
From Freedom of Information Act do you know the statistics of the % for the success rate for both chargebacks & S75? I am more likely to fail on S75 because it is not in the card issuer shareholders interest to issue refunds to card holders out of their own pockets correct?

S75 is a statutory process and deals with the full complexities of real life. It has its own rules though too like the minimum £100 item value and the need for the unbroken Debtor-Creditor-Supplier triangle which people often dont understand and so cases fail when travel agents or Amazon Market place are involved breaking the triangle. 

What do you mean of this Triangle? The 1 at the top of the triangle is the supplier or creditor?

There is no top.... you are the debtor, you must have a credit agreement with the creditor and a contract with the supplier. The creditor must pay the money to the supplier. As such each party has a direct relationship with each other hence a triangle. If for example you bought from Amazon Market place the creditor pays the money to Amazon who pays it on to the Supplier hence the triangle is broken 

ChargebackCharlie

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act holds the lender (card issuer) jointly responsible for the disputed amount.

Where possible, the card issuer will try and resolve the dispute with the supplier of the goods and they may even raise a chargeback to recover their losses, even if the cardholder didn’t specifically request a chargeback.

bery_451

The problem with chargebacks is there humans (beings that have emotions not Ai) at the company that might take chargebacks personal regardless if they are liable or not and thus they will pass the chargeback to debt recovery bailiffs. So S75 are better than chargebacks because with chargebacks there is a risk of the chargeback being passed to the debt recovery bailiffs. If they were a professional company then they wouldn't take things personally however professionalism has sank in the UK in the past couple of decades.

bery_451

Alright what if the invoice receipt is in someone name, cardholder who paid can still raise dispute? For example paying a service being done at your relative address.

eskbanker

bery_451 said:

Alright what if the invoice receipt is in someone name, cardholder who paid can still raise dispute? For example paying a service being done at your relative address.

If you mean that the contract with the supplier is held by someone other than the debtor (cardholder), that's likely to scupper a s75 claim.