Setback for UK credit card users

formatting link
UK consumers using credit cards abroad should not be covered by UK payment protection rules, a court has ruled. The High Court has said Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not apply to overseas purchases.

Under the rule, shoppers have the right to claim against the card issuer if a purchase is unsatisfactory, faulty, or the seller refuses to compensate them.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) asked the court for an official ruling, as some lenders were refusing to pay out.

The OFT has argued the rules should cover transactions made abroad or on goods purchased from overseas suppliers through the internet, over the telephone or via mail order - and not only on goods bought in the UK or from UK-based shops.

Its view was opposed in court by Lloyds TSB, Tesco Personal Finance and American Express.

Grey area

Section 75 has become a useful safety net for British consumers, as foreign travel and online shopping have increased in popularity.

But there was increasing uncertainty if the rule, which is based in UK law, applied on purchases made outside the UK's borders.

This confusion meant that some lenders were not compensating consumers while others were.

Some lenders said it had become too expensive to underwrite purchases in this way.

The OFT said it was considering whether to appeal the ruling, which will apply not only to purchases made abroad but also from overseas suppliers, via the internet, for example.

Citizens Advice Director of Policy Teresa Perchard said she found the court's decision "disappointing".

"It means that travellers and holiday-makers buying goods and services in another country will not automatically have the same protection as those making purchases at home," she said.

"We believe credit card companies should protect their customers wherever they buy."

She advises consumers to check their terms and conditions before they purchase a credit card and to switch to those companies who have said they will provide this protection.

WHAT IS SECTION 75?

Section 75 provides that for credit purchases with a cash price above 100 and not more than 30,000 the consumer is entitled to claim form the lender if things go wrong. For example, if the supplier breaches the contract

Reply to
Neaco
Loading thread data ...

I am surprised that this does not contravene some EU directive. I would have expected there to be some clause somewhere which states that in purchasing from another EU country you have the same rights as you would have purchasing in your own country (like the Distance Selling Regulations).

Reply to
Graham Murray

I suspect that would mean that people could claim under the Consumer Credit Act with a French credit card, and people in the UK could claim under whatever the French equivalent is.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

I wonder how fraudulent overseas transactions would be regarded?

Reply to
Tumbleweed

limited to claiming no more than the amount charged to your card. Under the old system you could for example pay a deposit on an expensive item of say

100 and pay the balance say 900 by any other means and have a claim against the card issuer for the whole amount of 1000. Eric
Reply to
Eric Jones

I think the difference in your example is that the Distance Selling rules are UK law, whereas the case referred to about is a dispute about what the conditions of a contract actually mean.

Reply to
Alex

It's not clear that US law would help buyers who order or purchase things from the USA:

formatting link
(relating to travel purchases, but mentioning also the distance rules that apply generally)

In my experience, however, Amex has come to my aid irrespective of where the purchase was made. And a number of US and UK card issuers offer protection against Internet fraud and non-delivery.

Reply to
Kuacou

Without a hint of irony, Kuacou astounded uk.finance on 14 Nov 2004 by announcing:

formatting link
"Nationwide BS has already told me that, as part of its commitment to service excellence, it will consider any valid Section 75 claim, regardless of where purchases are made. I'll let you know which other enlightened plastic providers rise to my challenge!"

Reply to
Alex

The change that SHOULD have been made was to have limited the liability of the credit card operators to the amount borrowed, irrespective of where the transaction took place. It makes no sense for them to be jointly liable for the whole value of a transaction in which their participation was limited to a small deposit, and it's silly things like that which endanger the whole of Section 75.

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote

I thought the basis behind the s.75 was that the cc co acts as the consumer's *agent* - thereby creating liability. Surely the amount borrowed doesn't affect whether they are an agent or not?

Reply to
Tim

I'm saying that a cc co shouldn't be liable for more than it lent on the transaction. If the whole thing went on a credit card then they should be jointly liable for the whole amount, of course.

I'm arguing this not because I want to favour the cc companies, but because it's in the consumers' interest to have a practical and reasonable liability mechanism which won't get chipped away.

If anything, the cc co is acting as the retailer's agent, not the consumer's, and it's that which creates liability.

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote

Would you say that an *agent* who didn't lend **anything at all** on a transaction, shouldn't therefore have *any* liability?

Reply to
Tim

In the context of a credit card, if they don't lend anything then they aren't involved in the transaction at all, are they? So yes, I would indeed say that very thing.

Your question seems to be more about other kinds of agent who solicit business, and in general they will have plenty of liability even if no lending is involved.

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote

Of course, if they are *not* the agent then no liability exists. But if they *are* the agent, whether they lend 1 or 10,000, then shouldn't they be fully liable?

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote

The question was meant to draw-out the principle of agents and liability.

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote

So why shouldn't a cc co 'agent' also have "plenty of liability" - regardless of the amount that they actually lent the consumer for the transaction?

Reply to
Tim

Because it's unreasonable, and may have induced the court to have taken an unfortunate view on this foreign transactions issue (some of the reports hinted that this was the case).

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.