Credit Card - Section 75 query

charliepaws9

Hello
I purchased a picture in France, paid by Credit Card.  It was my eye iris and my husbands joined as a photo.  Shop saw that there was an issue with the photo so retook the photo.
Returned home to England to find an email stating that the photo was not suitable and that we needed to return to have another photo taken.  After explaining that we were not returning to Paris, we were offered to visit Windsor to have the photo taken again.  When we asked for expenses to do this the company refused and offered us a credit note.  We live on the south coast and never go to Windsor so why should we pay out again using time, effort, travel expenses etc.  We filed a complaint with Santander Credit Card but they keep asking us for paperwork and want a copy of the company's terms and conditions.  We have been fighting this since beginning of Dec as we want a refund because the product we paid money for has not been delivered.  Any help on how we can push this forward? Thanks

DullGreyGuy

Have you provided a copy of the terms? It was presumably an in store purchase governed by French law. Presumably the terms cover what occurs if there is an issue with the photo?

Its presumably these people https://www.irisgalerie.store/galleries so seeing as you are on the south coast they also have one in Brighton

eskbanker

charliepaws9 said:

We filed a complaint with Santander Credit Card but they keep asking us for paperwork and want a copy of the company's terms and conditions.  We have been fighting this since beginning of Dec as we want a refund because the product we paid money for has not been delivered.  Any help on how we can push this forward? Thanks

To succeed with a s75 claim, you need to demonstrate that the supplier has breached the contract (or misrepresentation), so there needs to be a visible contract that the creditor can peruse.  How do you plan to show Santander exactly what you signed up for?

grumpy_codger

Can chargeback be an easier route for a simple non-delivery?
In this case it's the retailer that has to prove the opposite.

DullGreyGuy

grumpy_codger said:

Can chargeback be an easier route for a simple non-delivery?
In this case it's the retailer that has to prove the opposite.

It was an in store purchase by the sounds of it so "delivery" isnt ordinarily a consideration 

grumpy_codger

I can't say that I understand what sort of photo it was, but I see that they paid for something that was supposed to be delivered later. Am I mistaken?

DullGreyGuy

grumpy_codger said:

I can't say that I understand what sort of photo it was, but I see that they paid for something that was supposed to be delivered later. Am I mistaken?

According to the website it is normally all done in store in a single visit unless you want Alu Dibond print which is done offsite and sent. I guess if you turn up at 2 minutes before closing they may offer to send or for you to return to collect rather than either stay open late or turn down the customer. 

Chargeback rules are different for "cardholder not present" and "cardholder present" transactions and as we all know they are highly simplified rules hence why a "non-delivery" will fail if the merchant shows the tracking shows delivered even if the GPS location is no way near the delivery address etc. 

My memory is that non-delivery isnt a valid option for a cardholder present transaction, what evidence would any supermarket have that you actually walked out with the goods rather than them being supposed to deliver it? I could be wrong though and the likes of Born_Again has much better knowledge of the non-AmEx chargeback rules.

grumpy_codger

OK, it can be 'qality' instead or both. I'm no expert, but I don't see a problem. The retailer can't prove either while the e-mail correspondence proves both - poor quality and non-delivery.

ETA:
MSE -  Chargeback on Visa, Mastercard & Amex

born_again

grumpy_codger said:

I can't say that I understand what sort of photo it was, but I see that they paid for something that was supposed to be delivered later. Am I mistaken?

No.
In this case a chargeback would be the way forward.
But I would warn that the company can reject it on the basis that they have offered a option to the problem.

grumpy_codger

Well, the option has to be feaseable for both parties.
Again, I don't know how this works in practice, but your bank always asks for some proofs before initiating chargeback. This is a good opportunity for the OP to inform the banks that the option offered was unfeaseable.