Help! Refused Refund for Unused Beauty Treatment – Weak Chargeback Case, What Are My Options?

Ergates

The main point of contention here seems to be if the stall was or wasn't a "pop up".   This isn't something we can't determine here.  Even the OP - who has seen the stall in question - may not know if it's what would be classed as a pop-up stall, or if it's a regular/usual stall.

born_again

Ergates said:

The main point of contention here seems to be if the stall was or wasn't a "pop up".   This isn't something we can determine here.  Even the OP - who has seen the stall in question - may not know if it's what would be classed as a pop-up stall, or if it's a regular/usual stall.

Hopefully when OP comes back. They will say where it was. 

MyRealNameToo

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Under S75, which is a more permanent resolution, though still short of the ombudsman or courts

Section 75 merely holds the credit provider jointly liable, the bank may have their own internal processes to deal with customers seeking a resolution under S75 but ultimately there isn't any obligation for the consumer to use them. 

There is an obligation to mitigate losses but is a bank really going to spend thousands going to court to argue the consumer shouldn't be awarded costs because they didn't use their processes, highly doubtful, especially when the courts have set rules (including for example sending an LBA) for parties to follow when making claims, banks haven't been awarded their own set of special rules in that regard   

Yes, but the point being following a S75 you arent going to find your bank or a disgruntled merchant then suing you unlike the various cases of chargebacks that have been seen here were a LBA follows a successfull chargeback. 

This is where banking and insurance diverges by such a wide margin that I dont understand. Insurers will argue over loss mitigation and are regularly in court (though court itself doesnt normally cost thousands). I dont know if banks simply dont have the volume to justify investing or outsourcing but just seems odd to me. 

Maybe one day someone will point out insurer behaviour that banks find really odd/wasteful but it's not happened yet. Guess non-enforcement of credit agreements is one possible thing but we can naturally kill the policy for non-payment so mitigate the loss that way rather than a bank where a loan/overdraft has been spent with a third party so banks only option is to do debt recovery. 

born_again

Banks do not have in house legal staff covering S75. Only large cases (such as breast implant situation) where there are lots of claims on the same issue, will they ever see a legal team.
So for a bank to contest the cost is far to high. Then there is the matter of CCA & jointly liable, unlike insurance which is a different ballgame. 

MyRealNameToo

born_again said:

Banks do not have in house legal staff covering S75. Only large cases (such as breast implant situation) where there are lots of claims on the same issue, will they ever see a legal team.
So for a bank to contest the cost is far to high. Then there is the matter of CCA & jointly liable, unlike insurance which is a different ballgame. 

Same with insurers, at least for consumer insurance. 

When I started in claims it was 2 weeks basic training at which point 2/3 of the group left because they were dealing with customer claims. Then a further 2 weeks training for the remaining 1/3 that would be doing some form of third party work (pursuant or defence). Obviously lots of handholding after; we were on a little over minimum wage. 

Plenty of firms decide not to do recovery/pursuant work themselves given you can outsource on a contingent basis of about 10%

CCA S75.2 gives the bank the right of recovery against the Supplier