We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Best credit card for low income (benefits) for Sec75 consumer rights
Comments
-
Well, maybe you did but unwittingly.
Your OP said:
"
Companies I want to avoid include Barclays, Capital One, Halifax, Lloyds, Marks & Spencer, MBNA, Virgin Money.
"
M&S Bank is part of HSBC.
Virgin Money is part of Clydesdale Bank and in the process of being absorbed by Nationwide.
0 -
Your choice on who to believe but the LAW is what matters, not what you see on TV and the law is clear, it is for single items over £100
Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.
(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—(b)so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding [£100] or more than [£30,000]Thus as you can see, BBC and LBC are wrong.
The MSE website guide also confirms it
Your other comment about a £24 claim, the bank absolutely DO NOT have to do an S75 even if you ask, they are well within their rights to do a chargeback regardless. Even if a first line worker at the call centre made a mistake, the relevant team in the bank would not process an S75 for £24 because they would know it wasn't allowed (and more importantly that they wouldn't need to process it as they could reject it). They might have just refunded as it was cheaper than messing around
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
2 -
You did.
HSBC UK own M&S Bank and it will be fully part of HSBC UK from 01 June 2026 .
VM is owned by Nationwide and it will be fully part of Nationwide from 2 April 2026.
0 -
I don't know why people are talking about flights, try to stay on topic, read the headline if you are not sure.
0 -
So you were trying to be a smarty pants to get the response you got just so you could make that post.
Sad
0 -
I learnt a long time ago that pulling out sections of law is not advisable because there will be other sections and there will be case law.
What I was saying was I trust a Barrister who has recently been granted KC and Consumer Journalists with over 25 years of running consumer shows more than some block on a web forum and I stand by that.
0 -
As for my success at succeeding at getting a S75 processed for a £24 component on an order well over £100, don't take it so personally.
There are retailers every day who ignore the law on the Consumer Rights Act, if you are going to blow a gasket do it for those poor souls who have a washing machine at Currys fail after 18m only to be told "the warranty has expired there is nothing we can do" maybe go to their stores and hand out some leaflets advising people of their rights rather than nitpicking on forums.
You might be right that they could have processed it for a easier life, or because it was in the days when customers were valued. I remember it well because it was the last thing I bought from that company despite spending thousands with them over the years to that point. I also paid thousands in interest on credit cards which might be another reason. Thinking back it really does make me wonder what happened to companies wanting to make customers feel valued. Between offshoring and AI shopping is a pretty horrid experience these days.
0 -
No idea why you seem so keen to keep digging in the face of the facts but the clue is in the name - section 75 is a section within a wider piece of legislation, so it's hardly surprising that its terms are specified within that section!
It is true that the minimum item value has changed over time, in that it was originally £30 when enacted in 1974, but has been £100 since 1984.
It is also true that there are some grey areas of interpretation, as discussed in many previous threads about this, a subject also covered in the MSE article about it, but the law is clear that the £100 minimum applies at item level, not total transaction value:
More on what counts as a single item
Depending on the circumstances, things can sometimes be classed as either a single item or multiple items. Here are a couple of examples:
If a suit jacket and trousers are individually priced at £60 each, you're not covered, but if you buy the suit as a whole for one price of £120, you are covered.
Two flights costing £99 each wouldn't be covered. However, if you bought the flights as a return 'package', they would count as a single item and would be covered by Section 75.
A good general rule is: if it appears as one item on the receipt or order confirmation, it's likely to be classed as one item for Section 75 purposes. If it turns out what you bought is classed as two items (each less than £100), try using chargeback.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/#when
This is also covered by another credible (albeit also not infallible) consumer resource too:
However, if you bought two items that together cost more than £100, but each cost less than £100, Section 75 would not apply
Feel free to cite verifiable sources if you believe you've found anything that contradicts the actual law as quoted above (and no, claiming to have been paid £24 by a card company doesn't mean that there was any s75 legal obligation to refund).
0 -
There is your answer as to why.
Threads drift off topic,
Life in the slow lane0 -
The law is the law, a barrister, who argues criminal law in court, is not some sort of font of all knowledge that means they can make statements about consumer credit law as an expert witness (this is known as the "appeal to authority" fallacy). Perhaps you misunderstood and they were saying you could pay some small part of the bill for S75 cover which is the case. Regardless whatever you want to believe is your choice, it would still be wrong as the law is explicitly clear that S75 is for £100-£30,000, case law is used when there is an interpretation like where a motorbike is filtering and is hit by a car. Case law is not used when there is a cast iron fact in the law that states unequivocally that it only applies between 2 values, there is no room for interpretation.
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards