Credit Card Protection on 5K Purchase?

Start here.

Peter Crosland

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk posted

If you don't get what you paid for, the CC company must refund you your money. It's as simple as that.

You did pay the seller direct did you, rather than use your credit card to pay through Paypal?

Neb

Not as simple as that. if payment was made through Paypal then they can argue that Paypal met their end of the deal - giving the oney to the seller from the buyer, meaning the buyer could be unable to do anything via their credit card company if something went wrong.

I rang and paid direct.

I was aware that payment by Paypal complicates (or even invalidates) the CC protection, and have heard horror stories about the so-called "protection" they offer.

Sarah

Did you pay by paypal or direct through visa? If its the former, then kiss it all goodbye.

Gaz

Very smart..... Could we ahve a link to the ebay auction, and it might help us weigh up if the seller is a scammer.

Gaz

Good for you Sarah. You appear to be aware of the pitfalls & so have taken the necessary steps to protect yourself/your money.

Unless you agreed otherwise, the seller has 30 days in which to supply the goods to you. If they fail to do so for any reason, you can insist on a full refund which they must provide within 30 days of so being requested, Should they fail to provide the refund you can approach your CC Provider & require them to do a chargeback in accordance with Sec. 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - but then you're probably aware of that as well ;) Let's know how it goes.

Thanks Joe,

I was aware that CC payments offered better protection that PP, that's why I insisted on it, but wasn't sure of the level of rights. It's put my mind at rest to know that I'm fully protected because of the use of my CC in this transaction. Also didn't know about the 30 day periods, so thanks for that information.

Sarah

"Simon Finnigan" wrote

If payment is made through MasterCard or VISA (and not through PayPal), can they also argue that MasterCard/ VISA "met their end of the deal"? - Giving money to the (seller's) acquiring bank from the (buyer's) issuing bank?

If so, then *all* CC transactions are stuffed! If not, then what's the difference?

"Joe Lee" wrote

Why do you need to give the seller 30 days to provide the refund, *before* you can approach the CC provider? Isn't the CC provider *JOINTLY* liable with the seller? [That would give you equal right to go to either first...]

We should all pay our income tax by credit card.

Brilliant!

Because the protection from the CCA covers the transaction itself - in the example you give VISA give the money to the seller directly, who must then send you the item - that is the agreement formed there. When using Paypal, you pay Paypal to give the money to the seller - once the money has been sent then paypal have met their obligation. Remember, Paypal is only there to send the money for you, they are an additional party that isn`t present in the direct transaction.

Quite possibly from a letter of the law point of view, but you`ll probably find yourself jumping through even more hoops than usual with your CC issuer doing it this way round.

"Simon Finnigan" wrote

... just like PayPal would give the money to the seller directly ...

"Simon Finnigan" wrote

... just as you use MasterCard or VISA (in the case without PayPal) ...

"Simon Finnigan" wrote

Maybe so, but we are trying to determine whether your ** CC company ** has met *their* obligation! [Don't forget, your CC company is a separate entity to MasterCard or VISA, just like they are a separate entity to PayPal.]

"Simon Finnigan" wrote

... just like MasterCard or VISA are ...

"Simon Finnigan" wrote

But MasterCard and VISA are also third parties, separate to the buyer's issuing bank and separate to the seller's acquiring bank. If having a third party in the middle invalidates the CCA S75 protection, then it will be invalidated in *all* CC transactions -- because the buyer & seller have no contract with MasterCard or VISA (only with their issuing or acquiring bank, respectively).

Further, if CCA S75 protection exists when the transaction is done

*directly* (as you seem to suggest), then why do the banks say it is *not* when you pay someone (directly) using a CC cheque?

An update. The box arrived safely. I took off the plastic Royal Mail bag and the product itself wasn't sealed. There were signs the item had been previously inspected. That's OK, but it seems the item has a defect (one which an inexperienced person might not notice but I have made a thorough examination).

So now what should I do? I rang the manufacturer and they gave me an incident number for the supplier to quote to them. They suggested I send it back and ask for a sealed product. Do I understand correctly having now read the SoG Act referred to above, that the supplier is responsible for all costs and insurance of arranging return of the item?

Cheers Sarah

Yes, because the item has been found to be defective upon examination [1]. That's assuming the defect is such that the item fails to conform to the Contract i.e. it's something more than say, a minor scratch on the rear plate of a washing machine or built-appliance.

You can now require the seller to provide either a refund or replacement & to make arrangements for return of the item at their cost.

Without knowing what the item is it's difficult to say but it could be the case that the seller might be able to supply a replacement part or component rather than the complete item, assuming you would be agreeable to that.

Just to be clear regarding Sec. 75 protection. You will be protected if you used yor CC to pay the seller *directly* & not through or via a third party, eg. PayPal / Google Checkout etc.

[1] In accordance with the Sale of Goods Act, not the Distance Selling Regulations.

Because Sec.14(3) of the Consumer Protection - Distance Selling Regulations provide for the seller up to 30 days in which to make the reimbursement to the buyer, from the day on which the buyer gave notice of cancellation of the Contract.

The question of liability only arises when the seller fails to conform to the Contract & the legislation governing it. The CC provider therefore only becomes jointly liable under Sec. 75 of CCA (subject to it being a qualifying Contract) only when the seller has failed in performance of the Contract eg. as here, failed to comply with S14(3) of the DSR's.

You could approach the CC provider prior to that, but no legal liability would exist under which they would be required to provide a S.75 chargeback at that point. An exception would be where the seller had ceased trading / entered into receivership, at which point they may well accept liability subject to a formal claim being submitted.