Declined Section 75 claim. No valid DCS link

eskbanker

There seems little doubt that you were deceived and overcharged by a dodgy roofer, but unfortunately that doesn't in itself mean that your card company is on the hook to reimburse you, especially if he told you the job would cost £2500, you reluctantly agreed to that, and that's what you ended up paying.

While undoubtedly useful tools, chargeback and s75 aren't some sort of universally applicable 'get out of jail free' cards for resolving any and all disputes, given their 'terms and conditions', but the fact that the workmanship was poor, together with the concerted pressure to oversell a whole new roof, might be worth taking up with Trading Standards?

Is the roofing company a 'one-man band' or a more substantial operation, with a local reputation/website/social media presence perhaps (how did you find them in the first place?)?

In terms of the guarantee you've been chasing, I'd suggest that it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on anyway, so in the event of any future issues on your roof, in your shoes I wouldn't entertain getting him/them back and would go elsewhere…

fav68

I reported the company to Trading Standards via the citizens advice bureau. I contacted them through a 'find a tradesman' type website. I think they are quite a big company with a few branches.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094215#Comment_82094215

I agree it's not either Chargeback or S75.
But the roofer has used the card fraudulently, the roofer has paid off his debt to a third party. A person can not use a card number given to the with the intention of payment being taken to use however they want.
If the roofer wanted that arrangement he should have asked if that was OK and get the OP to make the actual payment.

EDIT to correct term.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094250#Comment_82094250

It's certainly not 'cashback'!

I don't recall it being stated as fact that the roofer was clearing a debt - there was obviously some deception involved but I'm not sure it actually meets the threshold of fraud. If it was then OP could go to the police, but I feel sure they'd just say it was a civil matter - when all is said and done, OP agreed to pay £2500 and ended up doing so, after willingly giving their card details to the person/company to whom the money was owed.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094266#Comment_82094266

Money taken and as you agree (some) deception involved, that is what is classed as fraud.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094271#Comment_82094271

I don't think it's as simple as deception + money = fraud, but it would be interesting to learn of the police's view as to whether this is assessed as that criminal offence.

The point remains though, in terms of whether the card company can be held liable for what happened, regardless of what label is attached, and if so, via what specific mechanism, in the absence of chargeback or s75 or the lost/stolen card protocol…

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094285#Comment_82094285

Did the OP make payment, no, did the OP approve that payment to supplier, no. if OP is saying those are the facts, how can that person then be liable for that card payment?

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094290#Comment_82094290

OP provided their card details to the tradesman to pay for the work that was done, as agreed!

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094293#Comment_82094293

there was no agreement for the tradesman to use the card in anyother way except to take payment, and payment wasn't taken, instead the card was used elsewhere.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094298#Comment_82094298

But the net effect remains that OP agreed to pay the tradesman £2500 and ultimately did so.

As above, I agree that there was some deception, but it remains unclear to me that this actually constitutes a basis for recovering the funds from the card company. Again, via what specific mechanism can this be done?