Does Section 75 applies to purchases through 3rd party devices ?

erofus
erofus Posts: 7 Forumite
in Credit cards
Hi,

I recently had an issue with a purchase of a 2nd hand car. I contacted the credit card provider to inform them of the issue and get a ref no to write to them later on in details. I was told that the retailer / seller used iZettle device and this is classified as 3rd party transaction ( similar to Pay Pal) and not protected under section 75. Has anyone else experienced this ? How consumers going to differentiate which device is what and which ones are excluded etc ?:money:
«13

Comments

  • Ben8282
    Ben8282 Posts: 4,821 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post Newshound!
    Well yes. If an average customer goes into a shop (or a car dealership) and pays by card in a normal chip/pin transaction in a normal chip/pin terminal how can the customer know?
  • boo_star
    boo_star Posts: 3,202 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Can't see how they can justify their stance, it's really nothing like PayPal.
  • erofus
    erofus Posts: 7 Forumite
    I agree ! :-(
  • unforeseen
    unforeseen Posts: 7,279 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    They could be right. From the izettle site
    Leave money in your iZettle account to process refunds

    Decide when to receive deposits for card payments
  • Terry_Towelling
    Terry_Towelling Posts: 2,279 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    These third-party-S75 issues are starting to come in thick and fast now.

    Without resorting to dangerous whimsy (sorry, private/public joke), the issue is possibly whether you are paying the retailer or paying someone else who then pays the retailer on your behalf. There is obviously a legal position to find here but no one on this forum can be absolutely certain what it is (probably).

    Opinions on the forum will vary but we can be reasonably certain that any transaction where you fund a wallet of your own and then use that fund to pay for something will not garner S75 protection.

    The only way a consumer is going to know what is happening in one of the more opaque situations (like you have related, erofus) is if there are T&Cs highlighted to you during the buying process that make it clear how the payment is being processed.

    My own opinion (and that's all it is) would be:- where you believe yourself to be transacting directly with a retailer (and there is nothing to indicate otherwise), where your funds can only be used to fund that transaction with that retailer, where that retailer's name appears in the transaction record, and where there are no T&Cs explaining to the contrary, then you are transacting in a situation where there are pre-existing arrangements between all parties and S75 cover will apply (and breathe).

    Another contributor to another thread on this forum (sorry, can't find it) seemed to have found information that suggested where the retailer has a contract (and an account) with a third party to receive its incoming credit card payments, as opposed to a buyer having a contract with a third party to send their outgoing payments, the debtor-creditor-supplier chain is not broken and S75 will apply. This sounds like the situation OP has.
  • eco_warrior
    eco_warrior Posts: 563 Forumite
    PayPal when it’s chip and pin falls under S75s remit. It’s only online when it doesn’t.

    How did you pay? In person using card? And how long ago was it?
  • eco_warrior
    eco_warrior Posts: 563 Forumite
    Things to consider

    1) what does the transaction look like on your cc statement? Merchant name or just izettle?

    2) if the money goes into an izettle account which belongs to the merchant then could this be considered a direct payment to them? My understanding is this is how it works when it’s a paypal terminal.

    We be good to know what the claim involves as well as you need to prove breach or misrepresentation as well as demonstrate the debtor-creditor-supppier link (which is the reason the cc have rejected the claim)
  • boo_star
    boo_star Posts: 3,202 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    unforeseen wrote: »
    They could be right. From the izettle site

    But that refers to the "retailer", not the consumer.

    A standard merchant account would offer those facilities too.
  • erofus
    erofus Posts: 7 Forumite
    eco_warrior wrote: »
    PayPal when it’s chip and pin falls under S75s remit. It’s only online when it doesn’t.

    How did you pay? In person using card? And how long ago was it?

    In the dealership using chip and pin on 2 Feb, but seller was notified on the issue on 1 March and it was a claim on the warranty initially which he did not accept.
  • erofus
    erofus Posts: 7 Forumite
    eco_warrior wrote: »
    Things to consider

    1) what does the transaction look like on your cc statement? Merchant name or just izettle?

    2) if the money goes into an izettle account which belongs to the merchant then could this be considered a direct payment to them? My understanding is this is how it works when it’s a paypal terminal.

    We be good to know what the claim involves as well as you need to prove breach or misrepresentation as well as demonstrate the debtor-creditor-supppier link (which is the reason the cc have rejected the claim)

    1) on CC statement it shows: iZ* ABC (ABC being the name of the shop)
    2) I wouldn't know !
    initial claim was for warranty claim, which they didn't accept , then agree to take the car back which they didn't. Car is fixed now by me so we would like to claim Consequential Loses/ damages.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards