Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
Page 1
    • michaels
    • By michaels 4th Oct 16, 10:56 AM
    • 22,519 Posts
    • 103,581 Thanks
    michaels
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:56 AM
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:56 AM
    Hmm - I would have thought 6 years would be the expected economic life (or more than) of a tumble dryer so the sale of goods act whilst applying would have suggested a zero value for the dryer after that period - after all had the dryer broken down after 6 years neither the retailer (nor by extension the credit card company) would have had any liability would they?
    Cool heads and compromise
    • VT82
    • By VT82 4th Oct 16, 12:56 PM
    • 1,040 Posts
    • 878 Thanks
    VT82
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 16, 12:56 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 16, 12:56 PM
    How is a six year old tumble dryer, that may or may not be faulty, the problem of the credit card provider with which it was bought said six years ago? Beyond ridiculous how banks (or, indeed, Nationwide) are seen as cash cow as last resort. Section 75 protection is becoming a joke.
    • Heng Leng
    • By Heng Leng 4th Oct 16, 2:15 PM
    • 4,738 Posts
    • 1,553 Thanks
    Heng Leng
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 16, 2:15 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 16, 2:15 PM
    They have an inherent fault (from day 0) so I would expect the retailer to correct this.
    S75 simply mirrors that liability with the credit provider.


    How is a six year old tumble dryer, that may or may not be faulty, the problem of the credit card provider with which it was bought said six years ago? Beyond ridiculous how banks (or, indeed, Nationwide) are seen as cash cow as last resort. Section 75 protection is becoming a joke.
    Originally posted by VT82
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 4th Oct 16, 2:40 PM
    • 7,895 Posts
    • 8,045 Thanks
    eddddy
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 16, 2:40 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 16, 2:40 PM
    How is a six year old tumble dryer, that may or may not be faulty, the problem of the credit card provider with which it was bought said six years ago? Beyond ridiculous how banks (or, indeed, Nationwide) are seen as cash cow as last resort. Section 75 protection is becoming a joke.
    Originally posted by VT82
    Section 75 provides cover for breach of contract.

    Is your argument that the consumer should not have got a refund from anyone - because there was no breach of contract?

    Or are you saying that the consumer should have got a refund because of a breach of contract - but it should have come from the retailer, not the CC provider?


    It sounds like you're argument is more about whether a breach of contract actually occurred, more than about Section 75.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

41Posts Today

3,096Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @IsabelHardman: This is really good. For all the stuff about noisy rows over the past few days, it?s worth remembering that a lot of abu?

  • This is why I wrote the guide to financial abuse. It's tough to know when it's happening to you. It's also worth? https://t.co/XGI2sI7hOU

  • RT @David_Challen: Really happy @MartinSLewis is raising awareness of economic/financial abuse. My mother cleaned her cousins home for poc?

  • Follow Martin