Section 75 - no use for secondary card holders?

Mishomeister

My wife has a secondary card but no CC of her own. If she buys plane tickets, these will not be covered by section 75 as the secondary cardholder card is used.

If I use the main card to buy tickets for her, these still will not be covered by section 75 as I am not buying them for myself.

I am NOT flying with her.

Am I correct in my udnerstanding that there is currently no way for her to get Section 75 protection?

Nasqueron

In theory yes you are correct - S75 needs to have a direct link between you and the seller via the card issuer and to be of benefit, secondary card holders do not qualify as you are the debtor, not them but they paid for it. Gifts are a bit more grey but usually they will argue as you had no benefit, you would be excluded

S75 is no substitute for travel insurance though 

PRAISETHESUN

The obvious solution would be for her to get a CC in her own name to use for purchases such as these?

born_again

Mishomeister said:

My wife has a secondary card but no CC of her own. If she buys plane tickets, these will not be covered by section 75 as the secondary cardholder card is used.

If I use the main card to buy tickets for her, these still will not be covered by section 75 as I am not buying them for myself.

I am NOT flying with her.

Am I correct in my udnerstanding that there is currently no way for her to get Section 75 protection?

Some do provide cover to additional card holders. Sorry can't name them.

Any particular reason for S75? As chargeback will cover many situations & travel ins should cover the rest.

Echo the above. Far better to get her own card 👍

DullGreyGuy

Mishomeister said:

My wife has a secondary card but no CC of her own. If she buys plane tickets, these will not be covered by section 75 as the secondary cardholder card is used.

If I use the main card to buy tickets for her, these still will not be covered by section 75 as I am not buying them for myself.

I am NOT flying with her.

Am I correct in my udnerstanding that there is currently no way for her to get Section 75 protection?

No its not correct, the law requires direct links between Debtor (you), Creditor (your bank) and the Supplier (the airline) without any other parties in-between you. It's the use of the term debtor which creates the problem for secondary cardholders because only the account holder is a debtor. 

If you can get an invoice or some other evidence from the airline that you are the one in contract with them for the purchase then in principle S75 will apply however you may end up with a bit of a fight. There are examples in the Ombudsman's website where people have bought a car for their kid etc which the ombudsman has upheld meant S75 applied because the paperwork supported that there was a contract between the debtor and the supplier. 

What type of breach of contract are you imagining that wouldn't be solved by a Chargeback through?

35har1old

DullGreyGuy said:

Mishomeister said:

My wife has a secondary card but no CC of her own. If she buys plane tickets, these will not be covered by section 75 as the secondary cardholder card is used.

If I use the main card to buy tickets for her, these still will not be covered by section 75 as I am not buying them for myself.

I am NOT flying with her.

Am I correct in my udnerstanding that there is currently no way for her to get Section 75 protection?

No its not correct, the law requires direct links between Debtor (you), Creditor (your bank) and the Supplier (the airline) without any other parties in-between you. It's the use of the term debtor which creates the problem for secondary cardholders because only the account holder is a debtor. 

If you can get an invoice or some other evidence from the airline that you are the one in contract with them for the purchase then in principle S75 will apply however you may end up with a bit of a fight. There are examples in the Ombudsman's website where people have bought a car for their kid etc which the ombudsman has upheld meant S75 applied because the paperwork supported that there was a contract between the debtor and the supplier. 

What type of breach of contract are you imagining that wouldn't be solved by a Chargeback through?

Surely his card details is proof that he bought the ticket

MEM62

PRAISETHESUN said:

The obvious solution would be for her to get a CC in her own name to use for purchases such as these?

Or.... not to rely on S75 when travel insurance is a more appropriate vehicle for coverage.  

DullGreyGuy

35har1old said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Mishomeister said:

My wife has a secondary card but no CC of her own. If she buys plane tickets, these will not be covered by section 75 as the secondary cardholder card is used.

If I use the main card to buy tickets for her, these still will not be covered by section 75 as I am not buying them for myself.

I am NOT flying with her.

Am I correct in my udnerstanding that there is currently no way for her to get Section 75 protection?

No its not correct, the law requires direct links between Debtor (you), Creditor (your bank) and the Supplier (the airline) without any other parties in-between you. It's the use of the term debtor which creates the problem for secondary cardholders because only the account holder is a debtor. 

If you can get an invoice or some other evidence from the airline that you are the one in contract with them for the purchase then in principle S75 will apply however you may end up with a bit of a fight. There are examples in the Ombudsman's website where people have bought a car for their kid etc which the ombudsman has upheld meant S75 applied because the paperwork supported that there was a contract between the debtor and the supplier. 

What type of breach of contract are you imagining that wouldn't be solved by a Chargeback through?

Surely his card details is proof that he bought the ticket

No, it only proves he paid for it, not that he was the contracting party. Its often the case that the person paying is the person contracting but its not automatically the case.


Brother in law a while back got himself into some difficulty so we paid his rent for a month, doesn't mean we are suddenly on the tenancy agreement nor liable for any future payments as we would be were we on the contract. 

PRAISETHESUN

MEM62 said:

PRAISETHESUN said:

The obvious solution would be for her to get a CC in her own name to use for purchases such as these?

Or.... not to rely on S75 when travel insurance is a more appropriate vehicle for coverage.  

I was making the suggestion more generally, but yes travel insurance will probably be the better choice specifically in this instance.

DullGreyGuy

PRAISETHESUN said:

MEM62 said:

PRAISETHESUN said:

The obvious solution would be for her to get a CC in her own name to use for purchases such as these?

Or.... not to rely on S75 when travel insurance is a more appropriate vehicle for coverage.  

I was making the suggestion more generally, but yes travel insurance will probably be the better choice specifically in this instance.

Other than for supplier failure, which not many cover these days but then chargeback is in place for that one as long as you arent booking it REALLY far in advance to exceed the 540 day limit

Mishomeister

Supplier failure is one, but also things like cancellations due to natural disasters eg, vulcano eruptions or also things like COVID.

Section 75 came very useful when our flights with Ryanair got cancelled due to Covid pandemics and Ryanair were trying to force us in to taking a voucher.