Section 75 Question

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

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.  

On what basis can they argue there is no Debtor Creditor link? I mean assuming "her card" is also "her account" and not a secondary cardholder of the OP's account. 

born_again

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

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.  

On what basis can they argue there is no Debtor Creditor link? I mean assuming "her card" is also "her account" and not a secondary cardholder of the OP's account. 

On the basis that they were not her boots. 

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

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.  

On what basis can they argue there is no Debtor Creditor link? I mean assuming "her card" is also "her account" and not a secondary cardholder of the OP's account. 

On the basis that they were not her boots. 

The that would be the DS link you are denying then but the invoice in her name proves she was in contract with the supplier which is the required link

As noted in the linked FOS case, it was open from the outset that the debtor was buying a gift for their son to be delivered directly to them but the paperwork was messed up. FOS correctly upheld the case on the basis the debtor was the contracting party. 

born_again

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

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.  

On what basis can they argue there is no Debtor Creditor link? I mean assuming "her card" is also "her account" and not a secondary cardholder of the OP's account. 

On the basis that they were not her boots. 

The that would be the DS link you are denying then but the invoice in her name proves she was in contract with the supplier which is the required link

As noted in the linked FOS case, it was open from the outset that the debtor was buying a gift for their son to be delivered directly to them but the paperwork was messed up. FOS correctly upheld the case on the basis the debtor was the contracting party. 

Agree, but how many people would not simply take the word of the card provider?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Thanks for further comments, no it's just her card, her account, etc, nothing to do with me at all. 

Order placed and hopefully won't have to find out how the bank views this one!

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

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.  

On what basis can they argue there is no Debtor Creditor link? I mean assuming "her card" is also "her account" and not a secondary cardholder of the OP's account. 

On the basis that they were not her boots. 

The that would be the DS link you are denying then but the invoice in her name proves she was in contract with the supplier which is the required link

As noted in the linked FOS case, it was open from the outset that the debtor was buying a gift for their son to be delivered directly to them but the paperwork was messed up. FOS correctly upheld the case on the basis the debtor was the contracting party. 

Agree, but how many people would not simply take the word of the card provider?

And yet its us insurers that get the reputation for denying all claims by hook or by crook 

born_again

DullGreyGuy said:

And yet its us insurers that get the reputation for denying all claims by hook or by crook 

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

End of the day, if there is a legal way out. Neither have done anything wrong.👍 Both are businesses, which as such to their stakeholders, should not be handing out cash when there is not need. Just like any other companies.