Refunds issued as gift cards but won credit card dispute

HillStreetBlues

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

S75 - double your money - rub your hands in glee 

Well yes indeed but doesn't that apply to a lot of cases? Your £1000 TV breaks after 3 months, bank refunds under S75, you fix your TV for £300. 

The fact the banks differ to retailers in that they don't want your stuff sent to them means S75 claims can end up being a bonus for the customer. 

It's normally the company that is better off as they have kept the full price of item sold.. In you example both the customer & retailer benefit.
In this case if CCC have refunded either the OP or the retailer will benefit, and surprised how many think the retailer should when it the retailer should just have refunded correctly.
So far the OP has done nothing wrong but the retailer has, so if one is going to benefit, I know who I would pick.

Grumpy_chap

A_Geordie said:

that is one hell of a stretch of an interpretation and certainly not how s75 was intended to be used (If you have spare reading time suggest you have a read of the Crowther Report which was a review of consumer credit and provided the framework for the CCA 1974). 

Any reference to how S75 was intended to be used is really surpassed by time.  S75 was never intended to be used in CC type credit where there is no real and genuine relationship between the supplier and the lender.  S75 was originally intended for linked credit.

A_Geordie

Grumpy_chap said:

A_Geordie said:

that is one hell of a stretch of an interpretation and certainly not how s75 was intended to be used (If you have spare reading time suggest you have a read of the Crowther Report which was a review of consumer credit and provided the framework for the CCA 1974). 

Any reference to how S75 was intended to be used is really surpassed by time.  S75 was never intended to be used in CC type credit where there is no real and genuine relationship between the supplier and the lender.  S75 was originally intended for linked credit.

Again, agree to disagree. Sure the report made recommendations based on the limited credit card market at the time but the core principle of s75 was to allow consumers to hold credit card providers jointly liable and to balance the field. The language enacted by parliament did created scope for it to be broadly interpreted as time goes on, which is why it remains largely the same since its inception and the Crowther report continues to be used as an interpretation aid by the courts today. 

born_again

Grumpy_chap said:

A_Geordie said:

that is one hell of a stretch of an interpretation and certainly not how s75 was intended to be used (If you have spare reading time suggest you have a read of the Crowther Report which was a review of consumer credit and provided the framework for the CCA 1974). 

Any reference to how S75 was intended to be used is really surpassed by time.  S75 was never intended to be used in CC type credit where there is no real and genuine relationship between the supplier and the lender.  S75 was originally intended for linked credit.

Cases like this show that the current implementation of S75 using Credit Cards is unfit.
As retailer is getting away scot free & can continue doing the same. Yes, the banks could take it further, but that only costs more in legal fee's & court time.

S75 needs to go back to where there is a direct link between retailer & the credit provider. As per S75A so the credit provider can hold retailer to task over their failures.