Section 75 Question

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Quick question, if my wife buys me something on her credit card does S75 apply?

Order over £100, invoice/order details in her name? 

@born_again

Olinda99

In theory no.

However if she buys it for herself and then gives it you as a gift it would apply

What is it ?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Olinda99 said:

In theory no.

However if she buys it for herself and then gives it you as a gift it would apply

What is it ?

Thanks Olinda99, it's a pair of men's boots so not for herself. 

Info on one bank's website said it doesn't apply to gifts, I couldn't see this mentioned in S75 but perhaps it's detailed in another section to apply to the regs in the general?  

A_Geordie

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Info on one bank's website said it doesn't apply to gifts, I couldn't see this mentioned in S75 but perhaps it's detailed in another section to apply to the regs in the general?  

I suspect the bank's intention is to mean that if you make a purchase using the card but the contract is not in your name i.e. father pays daughter's deposit for a car on finance. Then again, it is a bank and they like to try and come up with creative ways not to pay out so you wouldn't really know until you tried.

To qualify for s75 there needs to be a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement. DCS is defined in 3 ways but for credit card transactions, it must be a transaction that is used to finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier. 

So long as your wife was the contracting party (which appears to be the case), she has fulfilled the criteria and what the bank says on their website means !!!!!! all.  What your wife does with the goods afterwards is neither here nor there.

Nasqueron

While S75 is useful, if the boots are faulty you have the CRA2015 to go back on, you'd only need a S75 case in the most extreme circumstances where the retailer refuses to play ball and a chargeback also was somehow unavailable.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Thanks @A_Geordie

It was here:

https://www.santander.co.uk/personal/support/credit-cards/helping-you-get-the-most-out-of-your-credit-card

They mention "Purchases must be in the name of the primary credit cardholder or they must benefit from the transaction. For example, gifts for other people aren’t covered. "

I guess the "or" is the important bit there so order in her name S75 should apply?

Nasqueron said:

While S75 is useful, if the boots are faulty you have the CRA2015 to go back on, you'd only need a S75 case in the most extreme circumstances where the retailer refuses to play ball and a chargeback also was somehow unavailable.

Purchase will be with Amazon (sold by Amazon), if the boots fall apart after 5 months I don't really want to deal with CS quoting 30 day policy at me, wouldn't permit the bank to do a chargeback (well they can try but I won't return so it'll fail), whilst I don't think Amazon are as trigger happy with banning customers as is sometimes made out, why risk it if S75 applies  

Hopefully won't have to worry about any of it, was just curious on the gift aspect. 

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Thanks A_Geordie

It was here:

https://www.santander.co.uk/personal/support/credit-cards/helping-you-get-the-most-out-of-your-credit-card

They mention "Purchases must be in the name of the primary credit cardholder or they must benefit from the transaction. For example, gifts for other people aren’t covered. "

I guess the "or" is the important bit there so order in her name S75 should apply?

Nasqueron said:

While S75 is useful, if the boots are faulty you have the CRA2015 to go back on, you'd only need a S75 case in the most extreme circumstances where the retailer refuses to play ball and a chargeback also was somehow unavailable.

Purchase will be with Amazon (sold by Amazon), if the boots fall apart after 5 months I don't really want to deal with CS quoting 30 day policy at me, wouldn't permit the bank to do a chargeback (well they can try but I won't return so it'll fail), whilst I don't think Amazon are as trigger happy with banning customers as is sometimes made out, why risk it if S75 applies  

Come on, you know better than that, S75 isnt a long read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

The legislation says nothing about benefit at all, it talks of the direct relationships required between the Debtor, Creditor and Supplier. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3382396.pdf

Above is a reasonable example, opening line is that the debtor bought a car as a gift for his son, complaint was upheld and Capital One had to pay out. What is actually unusual with this case, and why it went to the ombudsman, was because there was a mistake on the paperwork that appeared to make it seem that the son was the contracting party and the father was the recipient of the car but there were arrows indicating these should be reversed. 

As long as she can show she was the contracting party, that she is the debtor (ie the accounts in her name) and the creditor (her bank) paid the money directly to the supplier then S75 applies, wether she likes wearing mens boots or gives them to you as a gift is irrelevant. Given your appetite for absolute clarity, the House of Lords (back when it was the supreme court) already clarified that the Suppliers Merchant Acquiring Bank doesn't count as a fourth party breaking the chain as some tried to argue that credit cards shouldn't ever be covered by S75 because of the bank

eddddy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Thanks @A_Geordie

It was here:

https://www.santander.co.uk/personal/support/credit-cards/helping-you-get-the-most-out-of-your-credit-card

They mention "Purchases must be in the name of the primary credit cardholder or they must benefit from the transaction. For example, gifts for other people aren’t covered. "

That's a bit poorly written. It's partially relating to secondary card holders. What they are trying to say is...

• If a primary cardholder makes a purchase in their own name (i.e. a contract between the primary card holder and a trader), then section 75 protection applies

• If a secondary cardholder makes a purchase in their own name (i.e. a contract between the secondary card holder and a trader), then section 75 protection does not usually apply....

• ....unless the secondary card holder is buying something that benefits the primary card holder. Then section 75 protection applies (That's not in the legislation, but that's what the FOS has decided.)

• But if your spouse / son / daughter / friend makes a purchase in their own name (i.e. a contract between your spouse / son / daughter / friend and a trader), but you pay for the purchase with your card, then section 75 protection does not apply. (That's what they mean by "gifts for other people")

So if your wife is the primary card holder and she makes the purchase direct from Amazon in her own name (i.e. using her own Amazon account), she should have section 75 protection.

It doesn't matter what she does with the boots afterwards - for example, whether she gives them as a gift.

BUT... if she buys the boots from an Amazon Market Place trader, rather than Amazon themselves (i.e. she pays Amazon, and then Amazon pays the Market Place Trader) - then section 75 protection probably doesn't apply.






Edit to add...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Purchase will be with Amazon (sold by Amazon), if the boots fall apart after 5 months I don't really want to deal with CS quoting 30 day policy at me, wouldn't permit the bank to do a chargeback (well they can try but I won't return so it'll fail), whilst I don't think Amazon are as trigger happy with banning customers as is sometimes made out, why risk it if S75 applies  

FWIW, I think you might find the bank's s75 team equally hard (or even harder) to deal with.

They're likely to want an expert's report on the boots, etc.

Nasqueron

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Thanks @A_Geordie

It was here:

https://www.santander.co.uk/personal/support/credit-cards/helping-you-get-the-most-out-of-your-credit-card

They mention "Purchases must be in the name of the primary credit cardholder or they must benefit from the transaction. For example, gifts for other people aren’t covered. "

I guess the "or" is the important bit there so order in her name S75 should apply?

Nasqueron said:

While S75 is useful, if the boots are faulty you have the CRA2015 to go back on, you'd only need a S75 case in the most extreme circumstances where the retailer refuses to play ball and a chargeback also was somehow unavailable.

Purchase will be with Amazon (sold by Amazon), if the boots fall apart after 5 months I don't really want to deal with CS quoting 30 day policy at me, wouldn't permit the bank to do a chargeback (well they can try but I won't return so it'll fail), whilst I don't think Amazon are as trigger happy with banning customers as is sometimes made out, why risk it if S75 applies  

Hopefully won't have to worry about any of it, was just curious on the gift aspect. 

Amazon, along with firms like Just Eat, don't take kindly to chargebacks (which is what a bank will typically try and do first) and you risk being banned from the platform. Unless it's 100% genuinely Amazon selling the goods, as opposed to them acting as a market place or fulfilling the order for a third party, you'll struggle with the S75 regardless. Further, why would you have any issue with dealing with their CS? Quote the rules, ask for a refund, 30 days is irrelevant, trying to push through a refund via your bank is a gamble

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

Come on, you know better than that, S75 isnt a long read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

The legislation says nothing about benefit at all

Thanks DGG, yes I should know better but these things sometimes go off on infinite hypotheticals so best to check   

Thanks for the other info, interesting read.

eddddy said:

FWIW, I think you might find the bank's s75 team equally hard (or even harder) to deal with.

They're likely to want an expert's report on the boots, etc.

Thanks also eddddy for the detailed info.

Yes this has come up on the consumer rights board before but within 6 months burden of proof sits with the trader (and AFAIK by extension the credit provider), additionally to mislead a consumer about their rights is a breach of the CPRs. 

Granted you could argue this with Amazon but as their CS is overseas and they seem to like to stick to the script it would no doubt be easier dealing with UK staff working for a company in a regulated industry (i.e the bank). 

Should they fall apart after 6 months probably not going to go to the trouble of getting reports so will write it off   

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Quick question, if my wife buys me something on her credit card does S75 apply?

Order over £100, invoice/order details in her name? 

@born_again

Strange that this did not flag in notifications?

Sorry, this is going to be a very iffy answer. Will depend on the card provider. Some will argue no DC link, other will simply cover it as good will.  

Just because they are mens boots, does not mean that she may not be using them 😜Some ladies have large feet 🤷‍♀️

But as mentioned, chargeback would be the 1st post of call if possible.