Declined Section 75 claim. No valid DCS link

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82091741#Comment_82091741

That's my view of it, as it's clear what the OP stated. The OP only found it wasn't wasn't paid directly to roofer when reading the statement.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092072#Comment_82092072

Original Poster

fav68

Thanks, That makes more sense now.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092105#Comment_82092105

If you look at the banner on any of your posts on this thread you have a red banner saying OP… it identifies you as the original poster who started the thread

fav68

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82091733#Comment_82091733

I didn't speak on the phone. It was the roofer that spoke but I don't know who he was talking to. I kept hold of my card and didn't give it to the roofer, I read out the numbers on my card and the roofer relayed them to whoever was on the phone. It does seem to be a very strange way for the roofer to take a credit card payment. He had already offered to run me to my bank to withdraw £2500 in cash. I believe the building supplies company that received the payment must have given false information to their bank in order to get the chargeback dropped.

eskbanker

I believe the building supplies company that received the payment must have given false information to their bank in order to get the chargeback dropped

Surely their defence to the chargeback is simply that they'll have provided the goods to the person placing the order, so as far as they're concerned it would have been a genuine and legitimate transaction (or there's at least plausible deniability), and the fact that the person placing the order was using someone else's card (with the cardholder present alongside him giving consent, albeit not entirely informed consent) effectively isn't any of their business.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82092856#Comment_82092856

In this day and age I find it strange that any business doesnt accept cards but there are some. If you use ApplePay or GooglePay then they wouldnt even need a card reader as it can be done phone to phone.

Do you know what code the chargeback was raised under? My guess is that you complained that you didnt get what you paid for and so the bank logged it under the code for Goods/Service not Received. Obviously to the Building Supplies they can show that order 332124 was for X and that X was delivered on Y date. That doesnt require them to give false information but is a disconnect between what you are talking about and what they are talking about.

If you are paying a builder to do work there is no world where the cost of the materials is going to cost more than the job so even if there were parts needed for your job clearly your payment went towards other stuff the builder has been buying from this supplier but it sounds like there were no materials required given they did the job in 30 minutes so its likely you are paying off a balance he has with the supplier.

Chargeback is a basic tool, it has crude rules and a simple application. Its intentionally like this as its not a final resolution and hence we see cases where people successfully have a chargeback but then get sued by the merchant.

Someone with better understanding of the differing chargeback reasons would have to opine if it would fit under one of the fraud/unauthorised transaction codes or not. I cant claim to know if it will or wont but on a more moral basis I struggle to see why it would be covered, yes the monies were paid to someone other than you thought but it was the amount you intended to pay and it discharged your liability to the builder.

It may be worth noting that I did once see a single FOS case, havent found it again since but there are a LOT of cases to trawl through, where someone paid a company for something, it went faulty and the bank turned down the S75 case on the basis the payment was actually made to the company next door. It turned out the company's own machine had broken and they had borrowed their neighbours. In that case the FOS rules that as the customer was unaware that they werent paying the merchant the DCA rules effectively shouldnt apply… unfortunately there are other cases where people "werent aware" but the FOS ruled that it didnt matter.

fav68

Thank you VERY much for taking the time to respond to my query. I originally reported the dispute to my credit card company as being a fraud but I don't know what code they used. I don't believe any reputable roofing company would behave like this one. I didn't get a receipt for the payment or any kind of paperwork for the job. I was hoping to take the case to the FOS but only have a couple of weeks before time runs out.

Nasqueron

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82093161#Comment_82093161

The question is what you hope to achieve at the FOS. S75 is a law, it requires a specific 1-2-3 link, if that link is broken then S75 doesn't apply and the FOS cannot change the law

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82093197#Comment_82093197

But, as highlighted by @MyRealNameToo, interpretations vary, so even if the institution considers that the D-C-S chain was broken, FOS might not agree.