Tweet
Hello All
I'm glad to be part of this forum and hopefully I can be of help to others and vice versa as we all input into the community.
First port of call for me is to share a challenge I'm currently facing in the hope that there are folk here who are able and willing to assist and that others will benefit from the experience. Of course, I'm sure this palce is not the right Forum for this so can the Admin kindly please re-locate this thread appropriately. Thank you.
***************OUTLINE ********************
I am presenting what I consider to be a valid CCA1974 Section75 claim against my CreditCard and the value exceeds £600. With S75 claims of course it is assumed there is either a dodgy vendor refusing to refund or one that can't refund due to liquidation or being incontactible. In this case it's the former.
So far, the lender/creditor has denied my claim on what are very dodgy grounds. They have not gone down the route of saying my claim is invalid due to T&C's or some other such, they've said the following:
1. The payment reference on the Credit Card statement has a reference to both paypal
and the vendor/supplier. They are insisting that this makes PayPal the supplier under the CCA 1974. They have chosen to disregard the portion of the statement text showing the name of the company I actually bought from! How devious. Had the statement simply shown only PayPal as the 'supplier', this might have been different but even then, that would still be devious as there's no reference to PayPal at all on any of the vendor documents!
I've also informed them that both on the card payment form and on the T&C's (a copy of which I've sent to the creditor) there is NO reference to PayPal so how can they be construed as my supplier?
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A NORMAL PAYPAL TRANSACTION WHERE ONE WOULD PAY USING their PAYPAL Account LINKED TO A CREDIT/DEBIT CARD. This is a completely seperate offline transaction between myself and a vendor company (supplier) using my credit card as the means of payment. Funny enough, the very reason I used my credit card to pay for this transaction was to cover me should there be issues with the vendor!!!
They've stated this twice now, in writing. I've had enough and am at the stage where I'm considering small claims. Before that however (and to that end should I get there), I'd like to know what case law/useful rulings/references may exist that address this issue. I've read elsewhere on CAG
that case law exists but need help to find it please? If not, some form of guidance by the OFT/FSA or other relevant body on this subject might be enough to persuade the card company against their bolshy stance.
It would be entirely unfair to consumers who may, like me chose to pay for higher value transactions using their Credit Card purely due to the added benefits of S75 only to find out that behind the scenes, creditors and suplliers are engaging in funnies like this to make a nonsense of S75 and thereby, the "will of parliament"!
Thanks in advance!
I'm glad to be part of this forum and hopefully I can be of help to others and vice versa as we all input into the community.
First port of call for me is to share a challenge I'm currently facing in the hope that there are folk here who are able and willing to assist and that others will benefit from the experience. Of course, I'm sure this palce is not the right Forum for this so can the Admin kindly please re-locate this thread appropriately. Thank you.
***************OUTLINE ********************
I am presenting what I consider to be a valid CCA1974 Section75 claim against my CreditCard and the value exceeds £600. With S75 claims of course it is assumed there is either a dodgy vendor refusing to refund or one that can't refund due to liquidation or being incontactible. In this case it's the former.
So far, the lender/creditor has denied my claim on what are very dodgy grounds. They have not gone down the route of saying my claim is invalid due to T&C's or some other such, they've said the following:
1. The payment reference on the Credit Card statement has a reference to both paypal
and the vendor/supplier. They are insisting that this makes PayPal the supplier under the CCA 1974. They have chosen to disregard the portion of the statement text showing the name of the company I actually bought from! How devious. Had the statement simply shown only PayPal as the 'supplier', this might have been different but even then, that would still be devious as there's no reference to PayPal at all on any of the vendor documents!I've also informed them that both on the card payment form and on the T&C's (a copy of which I've sent to the creditor) there is NO reference to PayPal so how can they be construed as my supplier?
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A NORMAL PAYPAL TRANSACTION WHERE ONE WOULD PAY USING their PAYPAL Account LINKED TO A CREDIT/DEBIT CARD. This is a completely seperate offline transaction between myself and a vendor company (supplier) using my credit card as the means of payment. Funny enough, the very reason I used my credit card to pay for this transaction was to cover me should there be issues with the vendor!!!
They've stated this twice now, in writing. I've had enough and am at the stage where I'm considering small claims. Before that however (and to that end should I get there), I'd like to know what case law/useful rulings/references may exist that address this issue. I've read elsewhere on CAG
that case law exists but need help to find it please? If not, some form of guidance by the OFT/FSA or other relevant body on this subject might be enough to persuade the card company against their bolshy stance.It would be entirely unfair to consumers who may, like me chose to pay for higher value transactions using their Credit Card purely due to the added benefits of S75 only to find out that behind the scenes, creditors and suplliers are engaging in funnies like this to make a nonsense of S75 and thereby, the "will of parliament"!
Thanks in advance!
