Tweet
Hi,
If a consumer tries to obtain a refund from her credit card provider under Section 75 or via chargeback since the services for which the payment was made was were incomplete and the credit card company finds this claim to be sufficiently justified to warrant investigation, temporarily crediting her account, (1) will the consumer be liable for interest and legal costs that the supplier claims this dispute has caused him? (I assume that the initial finding by the credit company implies that the claim isn't frivolous.)
(2) Will the initial claim for the provision of some services have been settled by the consumer's initial payment, removing the risk of a county court judgement against her, even if it is subsequently temporarily or permanently reversed by the credit card company?
(3) Is it correct to assume that there are two bilateral relationships under the dispute process between supplier and credit card company on the one hand and credit card company and consumer on the other hand (unless you enter 75(5)), so legal recourse of the supplier against the consumer would be impossible (especially for such legal costs as may be incurred in the legal dispute between the supplier and the credit card company to which the consumer is not a party)?
(4) Would that assessment change depending on whether the ultimate decision by the credit card company on the dispute is in favour or against the consumer?
(5) Wouldn't negative answers to (2) and (3) imply that the Section 75 process is hollowed out and consumer protection undermined, as any dispute would come with the risk of major legal bills despite being handled out of Court?
Many thanks!
If a consumer tries to obtain a refund from her credit card provider under Section 75 or via chargeback since the services for which the payment was made was were incomplete and the credit card company finds this claim to be sufficiently justified to warrant investigation, temporarily crediting her account, (1) will the consumer be liable for interest and legal costs that the supplier claims this dispute has caused him? (I assume that the initial finding by the credit company implies that the claim isn't frivolous.)
(2) Will the initial claim for the provision of some services have been settled by the consumer's initial payment, removing the risk of a county court judgement against her, even if it is subsequently temporarily or permanently reversed by the credit card company?
(3) Is it correct to assume that there are two bilateral relationships under the dispute process between supplier and credit card company on the one hand and credit card company and consumer on the other hand (unless you enter 75(5)), so legal recourse of the supplier against the consumer would be impossible (especially for such legal costs as may be incurred in the legal dispute between the supplier and the credit card company to which the consumer is not a party)?
(4) Would that assessment change depending on whether the ultimate decision by the credit card company on the dispute is in favour or against the consumer?
(5) Wouldn't negative answers to (2) and (3) imply that the Section 75 process is hollowed out and consumer protection undermined, as any dispute would come with the risk of major legal bills despite being handled out of Court?
Many thanks!
