Successful Section 75 - Retailer Action

[jvglos95]

I'm after a bit of advice regarding a successful Section 75 Dispute that took place in November 2022.

The dispute was in relation to two products that were purchased from House of Fraser. The dispute was on the grounds of inaccurate, misleading advertising on products.

Two Jack Wills shirts were promoted with images showing a blue shirt with white buttons, and a description stating the buttons were white.

The received product was a blue shirt with dark blue buttons.

When challenged, the retailer initially advised I'd received the wrong item, and sent a replacement.

A replacement order was received, which was exactly the same, HOF advised if I wasn't happy I'd need to pay to return the items for a credit note (not a refund) as the items were adequate. I suggested that the images and description on the website should be amended to reflect the actual product being sold.

House of Fraser refused to amend the website as the products were photographed using "Studio Lighting" which was the reason the images did not match the product being sold.

I initiated a Section 75 dispute which was successful and I was issued a full refund for the impacted items.

Today, over a year later and out of the blue I received an email from House of Fraser Digital Risk Team, the email outlined:

"At Frasers Group, we regularly review customer profiles. It's been brought to our attention that you raised a dispute on order in subject. Due to this chargeback, we have made the decision to suspend your account. We can also see that the bank closed this dispute in your favour".

This means my online account is suspended for all Fraser Group sites (House of Fraser, Sports Direct, Flannels, Game etc). It seems utterly unfair that I am effectively 'banned' for proving the retailer was wrong in their selling practices and customer complaint procedures.

Has anyone had similar experiences either with HOF or other retailers and what further action can I take/initate?

[PallasAthena]

You can contact the CEO and make a complaint and see if that makes any difference. However HoF are entitled to do what they did. No-one has a legal right to an online account with a retailer and if HoF don't want you as a customer they are entitled to make that decision.

[Pezza54]

OP's thread amended
PA is right you should send a letter of complaint to the CEO. When they sent an item not as advertised the retailer should pay for return postage. When HoF did it a second time it caused you frustration and inconvenience. You should state this in your letter and you consider it totally unfair your internet account has been suspended

[jvglos95]

Pezza54 - Sorry I should have been a little more clearer. The images showed a blue shirt with white buttons, and description was "Blue shirt with pearl white buttons".

However the shirt was off blue with dark blue buttons.

I agree, potentially HOF is upset that I was successful with the claim, it was a Section 75 Claim.

[echat11]

As stated above email the CEO, hit their social media, leave a Trustpilot review, send their Head Office some doughnuts, they've clearly taken it personally.

Alex Williamson
CEO
House of Fraser
alex@houseoffraser.co.uk

[atticus]

This looks like a good case in which to send a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection legislation.

[jvglos95]

This looks like a good case in which to send a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection legislation.

That's actually a really good idea! Thankyou

[Manxman]

jvglos95 - you might consider it unfair, but unless they are discriminating against you because you possess a protected characteristic, HoF are perfectly entitled to choose who they do - or do not do - business with

So far as I'm aware, winning a s75 claim is not a protected characteristic, and there is no law against "unfairly" suspending someone's account**.

The merit or otherwise of your original complaint against HoF is irrelevant.

Incidentally, you may have asked your credit card provider to raise a s75 claim, but are you 100% certain that they did that and that they didn't process a chargeback instead?

The reason I ask is that s75 payouts are usually funded by your card provider, have no impact on the retailer, and the retailer rarely learns of them. But chargebacks are actually funded from the retailer's bank account - so of course they are aware of them.

Even if you specifically ask your card provider to make a s75 claim, they have a vested interest in processing a chargeback instead. The card provider pays out on a s75 claim, but the retailer pays out on a chargeback.

If you are going to make a SAR to HoF you should do one to your card provider too - in order to see if they actually did what you asked them to do. (If they did process a chargeback rather than a s75 claim, you could complain to your card provider that because they didn't do what you instructed them to do, HoF have suspended your account... )



** I don't know if this is actually true or not, but it appears to be widely believed that if you raise a s75 claim, or a chargeback claim, or issue a court claim against Amazon, then they will suspend your account and refuse to do any future business with you or with anyone associated with your account - eg same card details, same name, same address etc