Credit Card company or PayPal; who's responsible?

[WTF]

Hi.

I'm after some advice regarding something I purchased two years ago.

I'm a huge motorsports fan and decided to purchase a package that would allow me to take my car to and use the facilities of race tracks around the country, otherwise know as Track Days. I paid over £650 for a five day track package which was valid for three years from the date of purchase (February 2012). I used two of the track days in 2012. In April 2013 the company I purchased the track days from ceased trading and is currently showing as 'in Liquidation' on the Companies House website. The motoring forums were awash with people who had lost money.

The company had offered the deal on the basis that the payment was made using PayPal. I paid through PayPal but used my registered Credit Card for the payment. My Credit Card statement shows the transaction as 'PayPal [Company Name]'.

I wrote to my Credit Card company requesting a refund for the full amount but they have rejected my claim stating that as I paid through PayPal, they are responsible.

I can't seem to find any information to confirm who I should be chasing for this as, from what I've read, PayPal cannot be pursued under Section 75.

Any help and advice with this would be hugely appreciated. Please let me know if you need any further details.

Thanks.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Credit Card company or PayPal; who's responsible?

To answer your question, neither is "responsible" (sic) - but also neither is liable under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Section 75 makes a credit provider jointly and severally liable for damages arising from a breach of contract by a supplier of goods or services, when the goods or services are bought on credit.

Your problem is that:

1. PayPal is not a credit provider - it is a payment service.
2. PayPal has not broken the contract - the event organiser did.

If you had paid for any part of the event by direct use of your credit card (rather than using PayPal) and that transaction exceeded £100, you'd have a valid claim.

Otherwise, you're stuffed.

[WTF]

Re: Credit Card company or PayPal; who's responsible?

To answer your question, neither is "responsible" (sic) - but also neither is liable under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Section 75 makes a credit provider jointly and severally liable for damages arising from a breach of contract by a supplier of goods or services, when the goods or services are bought on credit.

Your problem is that:

1. PayPal is not a credit provider - it is a payment service.
2. PayPal has not broken the contract - the event organiser did.

If you had paid for any part of the event by direct use of your credit card (rather than using PayPal) and that transaction exceeded £100, you'd have a valid claim.

Otherwise, you're stuffed.

Thanks for your response.

I've been doing some more research and was able to find this judgment: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/268.html

According to this transactions where there is a "four party" structure are covered by Section 75 and the Credit Card company is liable.

Does anyone know if this judgment has been superseded by a more recent one please?


P.S. CleverClogs, incorrect use of [sic]. :thumb:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Credit Card company or PayPal; who's responsible?

I've been doing some more research and was able to find this judgment: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/268.html

According to this transactions where there is a "four party" structure are covered by Section 75 and the Credit Card company is liable.

I really am quite astonished, as all the cases I've read or heard about used the interposition of a payment provider as a convenient excuse for the credit card company to deny the claim.

Using that case as a precedent, I'd say you have an excellent chance of success. Go for it!

[WTF]

Re: Credit Card company or PayPal; who's responsible?

Thanks, CleverClogs. I also found it strange that this precedent isn't more widely publicised. Even though it's in the public domain it took me a while to find.

I intend to do some more research, as I want to ensure this is the latest judgment, before progressing further.

If anyone could help locate any judgments that may supersede this one it would be most appreciated.