You can do a chargeback on a credit card as well. Section 75 claims is additional protection for goods/ services with a value between £100-£30,000 where any part of the payment was made with the credit card. Chargebacks can be used on credit cards where the amount was less than £100.
Well said Daniel. I deal with chargebacks daily for a merchant and the banks behave as a law unto themselves. Many banks do chargebacks and not a section 75 complaint because the latter has the potential for regulatory oversight if referral is requested, while the former does not. Banks do it to avoid fees by an ombudsman for adjudication. I cited the legislation of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 if many defences, and the banks have chosen to ignore it. Is it legal impropriety by the bank and should the FCA be informed?
@@phill6859 That is not truly the case. A section75 has Ombudsman oversight and the merchant and the finance provider can share information and come to an agreement if entitlement to a refund can be proven without a doubt. A chargeback is a merchant scheme that claws back the money and is run by the banks with no government oversight. It's mediated by Cardnet (Lloyds Bank) and a customer can be taken to court by the merchant if the bank fails to comply with UK consumer law. Many banks fail to do so. Furthermore, if a customer escalates to an Ombudsman the bank has to pay mediation fees to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). They use the chargeback merchant scheme to evade having to pay those ADR fees. A customer is always better doing a section 75 because you can escalate to FOS or the merchants Ombudsman/ADR institute after 58 days and get an ADR adjudication bound in law which provides legal protection. A chargeback is the bank Visa/Mastercard/Amex policing themselves. However, the aforementioned are US companies and if Cardnet escalate for appeal they take the stance of refund the customer even if they have no legal entitlement. Which can put consumers on the wrong side of UK Consumer law and precipitates debt collection, CCJ's, or court action. I know this as my work relates to the aforementioned and its legal interactions.
How long after a Section 75 complaint (in favour of the customer) does the retailer have to file a counter-claim in court? Is there a deadline for retailers?
![HELP - my solicitor won't send me my money [LBC Legal Hour]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9Tz9rVo3sRU/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact they paid the same amount to someone else to rectify the issues tells me it wasn't of satisfactory quality.
Exactly, his best friend in this will be the second contractor. If they give evidence that the first one was a bodge job it's game over.
You can do a chargeback on a credit card as well. Section 75 claims is additional protection for goods/ services with a value between £100-£30,000 where any part of the payment was made with the credit card. Chargebacks can be used on credit cards where the amount was less than £100.
That's correct. An S.75 claim is paid by the credit provider, a Chargeback on either a credit or debit card is paid by the trader.
@@atakdExactly, s75 holds the credit card provider 'jointly and severally liable'. This is a crucial distinction to Chargeback.
Hi Richard, any updates on your case?
Well said Daniel. I deal with chargebacks daily for a merchant and the banks behave as a law unto themselves. Many banks do chargebacks and not a section 75 complaint because the latter has the potential for regulatory oversight if referral is requested, while the former does not. Banks do it to avoid fees by an ombudsman for adjudication. I cited the legislation of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 if many defences, and the banks have chosen to ignore it. Is it legal impropriety by the bank and should the FCA be informed?
Chargeback comes from the other companies money, section 75 comes from their money. So they prefer chargeback
@@phill6859 That is not truly the case. A section75 has Ombudsman oversight and the merchant and the finance provider can share information and come to an agreement if entitlement to a refund can be proven without a doubt. A chargeback is a merchant scheme that claws back the money and is run by the banks with no government oversight. It's mediated by Cardnet (Lloyds Bank) and a customer can be taken to court by the merchant if the bank fails to comply with UK consumer law. Many banks fail to do so. Furthermore, if a customer escalates to an Ombudsman the bank has to pay mediation fees to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). They use the chargeback merchant scheme to evade having to pay those ADR fees. A customer is always better doing a section 75 because you can escalate to FOS or the merchants Ombudsman/ADR institute after 58 days and get an ADR adjudication bound in law which provides legal protection. A chargeback is the bank Visa/Mastercard/Amex policing themselves. However, the aforementioned are US companies and if Cardnet escalate for appeal they take the stance of refund the customer even if they have no legal entitlement. Which can put consumers on the wrong side of UK Consumer law and precipitates debt collection, CCJ's, or court action. I know this as my work relates to the aforementioned and its legal interactions.
How long after a Section 75 complaint (in favour of the customer) does the retailer have to file a counter-claim in court? Is there a deadline for retailers?
Chargebacks can be done on CC
Banks really are one big burden on the majority of us all Interest rates should be scrapped to help the lads out
Hum, he cancelled that payment too early. He should have got 2nd and 3rd options from professionals then took them to court for it.