claiming a refund under section 75 of consumer credit act 1974

filbertfox

I am in dispute with Anyvan.com
I paid £1000 with Barclaycard for a very poor house move service,so I am trying to get some compensation.
according to the letter from Barclaycard I am not covered ,Why?

DullGreyGuy

filbertfox said:

I am in dispute with Anyvan.com
I paid £1000 with Barclaycard for a very poor house move service,so I am trying to get some compensation.
according to the letter from Barclaycard I am not covered ,Why?

As they say, S75 requires a direct relationship between Debtor (you), Creditor (your bank) and Supplier which doesnt involve any other parties. 

The problem is that you used a middleman in the form of AnyVan.com and so whilst you entered into a contract with Joe Blogs who did the job and so is the supplier you paid AnyVan.com not Joe Blogs and so Barclay's dpesnt have a relationship with Joe Blogs and so S75 fails. 

It however sounds like they have done a chargeback instead which probably was the better option to start with anyway and what most banks would have done before considering it under S75

grumpy_codger

That's because you paid to Anyvan.com, an agent, not to the actual supplier of the services directly.

MSE: Section 75 refunds

It's a GREY AREA if you... Bought something from a third party seller. This includes things like buying a ticket from a travel agent or something through Amazon Marketplace, as these are also treated as third party sellers. But you may be able to use chargeback.

S75 is a nonsensical piece of legislation. It's understandable that credit card providers do their best to find all possible excuses for rejecting claims. However, this doesn't stop you from suing the actual supplier of the service if you have enough evidence to support your claim.

MSE: Small claims court

filbertfox

thanks for the above information,
I am disappointed that the section 75 is not working for me and others,the law obviously needs updating.

I spoke to barclaycard on the phone and they say they are waiting for a response from Anyvan by the end of July.
although the 1000 pound has not been taken from my account Anyvan received it from day one.

Nasqueron

filbertfox said:

thanks for the above information,
I am disappointed that the section 75 is not working for me and others,the law obviously needs updating.

I spoke to barclaycard on the phone and they say they are waiting for a response from Anyvan by the end of July.
although the 1000 pound has not been taken from my account Anyvan received it from day one.

The law doesn't need updating, if anything it's nonsense that the act somehow gives credit card companies partial liability just because you used them as the payment processor. 

MEM62

filbertfox said:

I am disappointed that the section 75 is not working for me and others,the law obviously needs updating.

Does it?  S75 is not meant as a catch all for all scenarios.  It already places an onerous risk on the lender for the whole value of the contract, even if the transaction value on the card is only £1.  i.e. Weighted to their disadvantage.  You best protection in almost all cases is is due diligence.       

DullGreyGuy

filbertfox said:

thanks for the above information,
I am disappointed that the section 75 is not working for me and others,the law obviously needs updating.

I spoke to barclaycard on the phone and they say they are waiting for a response from Anyvan by the end of July.
although the 1000 pound has not been taken from my account Anyvan received it from day one.

Why do you think a credit card company should be liable? How are they responsible for what happened?

S75 originates from a time where credit was rare and most credit would have been from car dealers, furniture shops etc where the store arranged the credit for you. In that context there is some logic to the bank having responsibility because they have a direct agreement with the merchant that they'll be pushing their loans and so should take some responsibility for having vetted the merchant. 

Credit Cards were almost non-existent in the consumer space then. Now they are by the the biggest contributor to S75 claims but your bank has very little say on who you can use the card with. A merchant can setup a Zettle account in 2 minutes and use their iPhone (maybe android, wasnt last time I checked) to take a payment seconds later. How should your bank judge if this is a fit and proper transaction to take on the liability?

It does need updating but by scraping it and leaving it back to how it was like S75a that only applies to tied finance. 

filbertfox

DullGreyGuy said:

filbertfox said:

thanks for the above information,
I am disappointed that the section 75 is not working for me and others,the law obviously needs updating.

I spoke to barclaycard on the phone and they say they are waiting for a response from Anyvan by the end of July.
although the 1000 pound has not been taken from my account Anyvan received it from day one.

Why do you think a credit card company should be liable? How are they responsible for what happened?

Because Martin Lewis and others are always saying 'pay by credit card to protected yourself from poor/no goods/service' etc.

eskbanker

filbertfox said:

DullGreyGuy said:

filbertfox said:

thanks for the above information,
I am disappointed that the section 75 is not working for me and others,the law obviously needs updating.

I spoke to barclaycard on the phone and they say they are waiting for a response from Anyvan by the end of July.
although the 1000 pound has not been taken from my account Anyvan received it from day one.

Why do you think a credit card company should be liable? How are they responsible for what happened?

Because Martin Lewis and others are always saying 'pay by credit card to protected yourself from poor/no goods/service' etc.

Martin Lewis is as guilty as anyone of glibly generalising and oversimplifying - it is undoubtedly true that S75 does give protection in many situations, but buying via third parties isn't one of them, as explained in the MSE article and elsewhere:

You're NOT COVERED by Section 75 if you... [...] Bought something from a third party seller. This includes things like buying a ticket from a travel agent or something through Amazon Marketplace, as these are also treated as third party sellers. But you may be able to use chargeback.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/#when

DullGreyGuy

filbertfox said:

DullGreyGuy said:

filbertfox said:

thanks for the above information,
I am disappointed that the section 75 is not working for me and others,the law obviously needs updating.

I spoke to barclaycard on the phone and they say they are waiting for a response from Anyvan by the end of July.
although the 1000 pound has not been taken from my account Anyvan received it from day one.

Why do you think a credit card company should be liable? How are they responsible for what happened?

Because Martin Lewis and others are always saying 'pay by credit card to protected yourself from poor/no goods/service' etc.

Martin has done exceptionally well for himself from being able to create soundbites; soundbites normally lack all the detail. 

He isnt however saying its a catch all nor that its how the law should be, at the end of the day it gives some protection in some circumstances and no reason not to have free protection when you can even if its a quirk of history and not really appropriate in todays world. 

There was litigation many years ago, before the Supreme Court existed and back when the House of Lords was the highest court. Technically when you pay by credit card there is a fourth party involved in terms of the merchant's acquiring bank and so by the strictest interpretation no CC transactions should ever have been covered but the HoL ruled in favour of the claimants saying effective that the acquiring bank can be ignored. Had that ruling been different there may have been less issues with how it operates today.