We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Section 75 - no use for secondary card holders?
Comments
-
Mishomeister said: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.0
-
Jumping on this thread, rather than starting another...
My wife paid for some click vinyl flooring for our home, but we've had issues and the retailer wont help even though it's under a "lifetime guarantee". My wife used her CC, but I did the flooring order and the invoice is in my name. The CC provider has stated we do no qualify for S75 cover as the order is not in her name, even though we live together and obviously the flooring is used by us both! We have tried challenging the decision from CC issuer but no joy...0 -
*cogs* said:Jumping on this thread, rather than starting another...
My wife paid for some click vinyl flooring for our home, but we've had issues and the retailer wont help even though it's under a "lifetime guarantee". My wife used her CC, but I did the flooring order and the invoice is in my name. The CC provider has stated we do no qualify for S75 cover as the order is not in her name, even though we live together and obviously the flooring is used by us both! We have tried challenging the decision from CC issuer but no joy...
Ultimately you can complain and escalate the mater to the Ombudsman who does on occasion consider what is "fair" rather than strictly what the law states but your chances arent great. You would need to focus on the fact it was a joint purchase and explain why it wasnt in joint names on the invoice.0 -
thank you for the guidance - will give try the Ombudsman a try0
-
*cogs* said:thank you for the guidance - will give try the Ombudsman a try
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards