HELP: Capital One Potentially Reversing Refund After Kickstarter Scam - Botnono Project

Grumpy_chap

dataworf said:

Does this draft better describe Kickstarter?

Blah Blah Blah.
TLDR
I hope that putting that together did something for your inner self to vent your spleen.

Beyond that, it is probably left there and not published wider in case any of the phrases used are subjective and risk be defamatory.

eskbanker

A_Geordie said:

born_again said:
S75 does not cover fraud.

S75 covers misrepresentation, of which fraudulent misrepresentation is a sub-category. 

I think this has come up before - as I recall @born_again (or perhaps their employer) prefers a particularly narrow definition of 'fraud', simply meaning unauthorised use of a card, whereas, as you rightly say, fraud takes various forms, some of which do fall within s75 scope, even if they follow a different workflow within the card company's processes.

eskbanker

dataworf said:

Does this draft better describe Kickstarter?

What are you hoping to achieve by writing an essay?

If you're minded to try to get some or all of your money back then you need to focus on persuading the relevant organisation of the legal and/or contractual merits of your case, rather than assembling a rambling polemic, however satisfying it may be to get all that off your chest....

A_Geordie

eskbanker said:

I think this has come up before - as I recall @born_again (or perhaps their employer) prefers a particularly narrow definition of 'fraud', simply meaning unauthorised use of a card, whereas, as you rightly say, fraud takes various forms, some of which do fall within s75 scope, even if they follow a different workflow within the card company's processes.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation of a misrepresentation but whether we like it or not, misrepresentation is well established as consisting of fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation. S75 does not narrow the type of misrepresentaion, it simply states misrepresentation and therefore it covers all 3 instances (pretty sure there is some old case law on this as authority). 

Banks and their represententatives ought to be aware by now that a misrepresentation under s75 will also cover fraudulent misrepresentation and if they try to tell a consumer otherwise with the intention or recklessness to dissuade a consumer from bringing a valid claim against the bank, that in of itself could be considered a misrepresentation, fraudulent or otherwise. 

It just always amuses me that banks treat a s75 claim in a similar manner to a chargeback. The consumer only needs to send them a letter before action, nor do they have to try and resolve the issue with the trader because it's a joint and several liability so they can pursue only the bank - contrary to what Lloyds or Bank of Scotland says on their website, which is more than likely a misrepresentation of the law.

born_again

A_Geordie said:

born_again said:

S75 does not cover fraud.

S75 covers misrepresentation, of which fraudulent misrepresentation is a sub-category. 

Let me rephrase it then.
S75 is not used in fraud cases 👍
They are covered by fraud chargeback. But that is not the case the OP is describing.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

https://www.lloydsbank.com/credit-cards/help-and-guidance/section75.html

See this is where I have issue with what banks say  

Lloyds says S75 does not apply when:

"You change your mind about a purchase."

However that is not true, Regulation 18 of the CCRs says

Effect on contract of failure to provide information

18.  Every contract to which this Part applies is to be treated as including a term that the trader has complied with the provisions of—

(a)regulations 9 to 14, and

(b)regulation 16.

Which means all the information in Schedule 2, including 

where a right to cancel exists, the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right in accordance with regulations 27 to 38;

is an implied term, so if you change your mind about a purchase and the trader doesn't offer your rights in accordance with the legislation that is a breach of contract and you should be covered by S75 (assuming link, over £100, etc).

I would go so far as to say the way the information is presented on Lloyds, BoS (and Halifax) with regards to that specific point is misleading and thus I don't trust anything else they happen to have to say!

born_again

Would agree in some ways, but there is no cover all for change of mind. As we know. Walk into a store, there is no consumer right for change of mind.
Many people do try the well I  have cancelled this service & I don't like this produce & want my money back. Outside 14 days when online.

If customer cancels. Then they are breaking any contract. Unless it falls within the above regs. 👍

eskbanker

born_again said:

If customer cancels. Then they are breaking any contract. Unless it falls within the above regs. 👍

....but that's not what that document says!

Belenus

OP.

How much money have you lost?

Okell

Can someone explain to me what the basis of @dataworf's claim is?

I know he's mentioned the CRA a couple of times but obviously his situation isn't a type of contract covered by the CRA.

Is he arguing that Kickstarter fraudulently misrepresented this "investment opportunity"?