Section 75 timescale

Doobymafirkin

Hi guys ,
Can someone please clarify the timescale to claim ?
We purchased in October 24 and since have lodged a claim under section 75.
Halifax Mastercard are saying it's been rejected due to being out of the time limit ?
I always thought you had 6 years from date of purchase?
Thanks in advance 

DullGreyGuy

Doobymafirkin said:

Hi guys ,
Can someone please clarify the timescale to claim ?
We purchased in October 24 and since have lodged a claim under section 75.
Halifax Mastercard are saying it's been rejected due to being out of the time limit ?
I always thought you had 6 years from date of purchase?
Thanks in advance 

They've considered it a Chargeback not a S75, with most banks you raise a "dispute" and the bank will decide which of the two routes to take. Chargeback is almost always the first because it has time limits and you can do a S75 after a failed Chargeback but rarely the other way around. 

Speak to them and request that they consider it under S75 not as a chargeback. You will need to provide greater evidence for a S75 than a chargeback so good to get it ready. 

TheSpectator

If this is related to OP's other thread then as it was an online course for OP's daughter then S75 would not apply?

DullGreyGuy

TheSpectator said:

If this is related to OP's other thread then as it was an online course for OP's daughter then S75 would not apply?

This site would be so much better if they could add a gadget to highlight that you've recently replied to another thread started by the same user recently... save a lot of wasted time

TheSpectator

DullGreyGuy said:

TheSpectator said:

If this is related to OP's other thread then as it was an online course for OP's daughter then S75 would not apply?

This site would be so much better if they could add a gadget to highlight that you've recently replied to another thread started by the same user recently... save a lot of wasted time

Or if posters would stick to one thread

Doobymafirkin

My apologies , to those that have replied to my original post .
I was merely asking another question as they have replied back to me contesting their original decision.
Which was , I wasn't successful with my claim as I purchased it but it was my daughters name on the contract .
I appealed  and they replied back that their original decision still stands ..... and it was rejected due to being out of time to lodge a section 75 claim ?? REALY ??? I thought i had 6 years and the reason is different to their first reason !! 
Regards 

DullGreyGuy

TheSpectator said:

DullGreyGuy said:

TheSpectator said:

If this is related to OP's other thread then as it was an online course for OP's daughter then S75 would not apply?

This site would be so much better if they could add a gadget to highlight that you've recently replied to another thread started by the same user recently... save a lot of wasted time

Or if posters would stick to one thread

I'm willing to put money on which is the more likely to happen first.

MattMattMattUK

Doobymafirkin said:

My apologies , to those that have replied to my original post .
I was merely asking another question as they have replied back to me contesting their original decision.
Which was , I wasn't successful with my claim as I purchased it but it was my daughters name on the contract .
I appealed  and they replied back that their original decision still stands ..... and it was rejected due to being out of time to lodge a section 75 claim ?? REALY ??? I thought i had 6 years and the reason is different to their first reason !! 
Regards 

As explained in your previous thread, both Chargeback and Section 75 will both be declined because of the contract is in your daughter's name. 

How is the reason different?

Doobymafirkin

MattMattMattUK said:

Doobymafirkin said:

My apologies , to those that have replied to my original post .
I was merely asking another question as they have replied back to me contesting their original decision.
Which was , I wasn't successful with my claim as I purchased it but it was my daughters name on the contract .
I appealed  and they replied back that their original decision still stands ..... and it was rejected due to being out of time to lodge a section 75 claim ?? REALY ??? I thought i had 6 years and the reason is different to their first reason !! 
Regards 

As explained in your previous thread, both Chargeback and Section 75 will both be declined because of the contract is in your daughter's name. 

How is the reason different?

Hi , it's different because the original decision line was because it's my daughters name on the contract.
I appealed their decision and came back with it's being declined because it's not with the timescale to claim set out in section 75 guidelines....
Everywhere I read it's 6 years from date of purchase 

Regards 

DullGreyGuy

Doobymafirkin said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Doobymafirkin said:

My apologies , to those that have replied to my original post .
I was merely asking another question as they have replied back to me contesting their original decision.
Which was , I wasn't successful with my claim as I purchased it but it was my daughters name on the contract .
I appealed  and they replied back that their original decision still stands ..... and it was rejected due to being out of time to lodge a section 75 claim ?? REALY ??? I thought i had 6 years and the reason is different to their first reason !! 
Regards 

As explained in your previous thread, both Chargeback and Section 75 will both be declined because of the contract is in your daughter's name. 

How is the reason different?

Hi , it's different because the original decision line was because it's my daughters name on the contract.
I appealed their decision and came back with it's being declined because it's not with the timescale to claim set out in section 75 guidelines....
Everywhere I read it's 6 years from date of purchase 

Regards 

S75 has no set timescale, it simply mirrors the liability of the Supplier to the Creditor. It expires in exactly the same timescale both under the original contract and under the mirrored liability. In most cases S75 is a breach of contract and therefore in England its 6 years from the date of the breach, in Scotland its 5 years. In other circumstances it could be different. 

As discussed on your other thread you have no contract with the Supplier therefore the D-C-S chain is broken and no S75 rights exist. 

It sounds like they have looked at other avenues, like a Chargeback, which doesnt require a D-C-S chain but is now out of time. This is one of the reasons most banks will look at a Chargeback first and S75 later because you can do S75 after a failed chargeback but very rarely the other way around. 

lr1277

I don't know if this was mentioned in the other thread but a chargeback has to be claimed within 120 days of the purchase. Or as I understand, if the purchase was made for something in the future, then within 120 days of the date of whatever was purchased started/finished. I don't know the exact definition on that score.

I imagine, if the course was last autumn, then as S75 failed and now chargeback has failed because of the 120 day rule?

Edited to add: more details on chargeback here:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/ 

Though I don't entirely agree with the article. It states for a credit card use S75 for anything over £100. I think there will be occassions where chargeback is appropriate for individual items costing more than £100 even when paid by credit card. For example like in this case where there is no D-C-S relationship. And card companies prefer chargeback because the money doesn't come out of their pocket.

2nd edit: As mentioned in the article, though may not be relevant here, chargeback can be clawed back. If the retailer disputes your claim, and the card company agrees, then the chargeback may be debited from your account and returned to the retailer. The retailer has to initiate the clawback within a certain time period.