Declined Section 75 claim. No valid DCS link

redux

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095484#Comment_82095484

They won't see the job quality as the issue. It feels like your point should be that the transaction between roofer and supplier took place without your knowledge, and pays for materials not connected with your job. Argue that the supplier should be paid by its client not you.

That said, sometimes arrangements do happen. There was an occasion years ago when I was having some work done on my car, and in lieu of me paying him direct I paid for two replacement windscreens he was having fitted to another car and to mine by a firm from a couple of miles away. But I knew this and I was talking to that firm when paying. And a lot cheaper than Autoglass etc it was too.

fav68

Thanks, very helpful.

Maegi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82093449#Comment_82093449

The discussion has moved on a bit.

The merchant shouldn't have accepted third party card details without written card holder authorisation. There appears no contract between the Original Poster (OP) and them - a better targeted chargeback probably would have been successful but it looks like FOS or Small Claims stage now.

From a practical perspective, grifters are going to grift but if OP was successful with their chargeback from the goods supplier, it could make their grifting that bit harder.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095932#Comment_82095932

There's no obligation on the merchant to validate like that - it's much the same as letting a family member use your card when, say, booking a flight, in that the airline isn't actually doing anything wrong by not verifying that the cardholder has given permission, even though they can choose to do so to give themselves additional protection (in the scenario where the card was stolen, for example).

As I said above, it's possible that there was some sort of collusion between the roofer and the merchant but it's far from proven, based on what we know, so the merchant's defence that they supplied materials in good faith hasn't been disproved…

fav68

Thanks to everyone who has helped. The advice has been amazing.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095932#Comment_82095932

Written authorisation? What centurary are you living in? No such requirement exists which is why you see millions of websites not explicitly asking who is completing an ecommerce transaction where the delivery name and the card name dont match. The more cautious of industries will have in their T&Cs that the person completing the details of the order must have permission from the cardholder but then who reads the T&Cs?

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094355#Comment_82094355

OP authorised a 3rd party (who did not take card payment) to use their card (against T/C of card) So just who did they think they would be paying?

Not fraud as OP Gave card to 3rd party As such OP is complicate in the transaction. End result. Op is 100% liable for this.

eskbanker

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

You mentioned above (on the 5th) that you were "hoping to take the case to the FOS but only have a couple of weeks before time runs out" - have you done so before the deadline expires, presumably this week sometime, and if so, how have you structured your case against your card company?

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82106821#Comment_82106821

The principle of FOS referral is basically to escalate the complaint you've already made to the financial institution, so the starting point needs to be that complaint and their response to it.

In particular, if you complained about their mishandling of chargeback then you should be clear about the difference between what they actually did (or didn't do) and what you contend they should have done, in reasonably specific terms.

Likewise, if you're asserting that they are liable under s75, then you should explain exactly why.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82106554#Comment_82106554

AIUI the OP thought the roofer was calling their office to take payment.