Section 75 claim

born_again

OP's son really should have contacted their CC back in 2022 when the goods had not arrived & a chargeback actioned. Now they are going to be best impressed that 4 years later the issue has been raised.

molerat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82133993#Comment_82133993

But he has the law / limitations act / s75 on his side, best impressed or not he is within his legal rights.

Grumpy_chap

I’ll give it a go

AIUI, any "go" that the OP gives it is destined to certain failure as the OP is not a party to the transaction and not benefitting from the S75 cover.

The most the OP can do is to encourage and assist their son with pursuing an S75 claim should their son so wish.

grannypep

Yes, s75 claims are not chargeback disputes. The time limit is generally 6 years. The credit card provider is jointly liable with the goods supplier assuming DCS exists (debtor-creditor-supplier). This basically means if there is a "3rd party" involved in the transaction DCS is broken and s75 fails (in other words, the debtor needs to be buying the goods directly from the supplier using the credit card, not via say paypal or ebay or any other 3rd party). Also. The evidence required needs to be robust and "buying a chip or something" unfortunately wouldn't really cut the mustard. You say he ordered a bobcat miner. This appears to be linked to crypto. He in all probability received warnings from the credit card provider when he placed the order. His credit card was cancelled due to debt issues. I'm sorry to hear that. That wouldn't in itself invalidate a s75 claim however if your son thinks he'll get the money even if the s75 succeeded (and that's at best debatable) the bank may apply any refund to his debt. If your son is struggling with debt issues, there are a few places he could access advice such as Citizens Advice, Stepchange, CAP (stands for Christians Against Poverty - you don't need to be religious for them to help). Some Councils also have departments that help people with money concerns.

eskbanker

The credit card provider is jointly liable with the goods supplier assuming DCS exists (debtor-creditor-supplier). This basically means if there is a "3rd party" involved in the transaction DCS is broken and s75 fails (in other words, the debtor needs to be buying the goods directly from the supplier using the credit card, not via say paypal or ebay or any other 3rd party).

Just to be clear, it's only a fourth party that breaks the s75 chain - as you've pointed out, there are already three (debtor, creditor and supplier).

grannypep

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82137178#Comment_82137178

I worked in credit card disputes so to some extent I don't disagree as it does introduce a 4th entity into the transaction. If the, let's agree on "an additional party" (we called it a 3rd party in my job) (ie, not the debtor, creditor, supplier) breaks the link by being part of the transaction, DCS doesn't apply. I did give an example of what I meant in my reply (which was intended to be helpful) that I thought explained the situation reasonably clearly but if the OP needed further understanding they could research what DCS is and what it means for a s75 claim. I only brought up the subject of DCS because nobody else had. Thanks for your reply, eskbanker

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82137178#Comment_82137178

When credit cards are used then there is a 4th party involved too in the form of the companies credit card processor. The House of Lords (before the Supreme Court existed) already opined on that one and determined that it was intended that S75 cover credit cards and so the 4th party is to be ignored. So its the 4th or 5th party depending on if you are using a credit card or a linked loan