Chargeback vs Section 75

[Simpo Two]

Apart from the fact chargebacks are limited to 120 days, is there any difference in the parameters used to assess a case?

I've found this:

Chargeback:
Quality of item – the goods were not as described or were defective.
Non-delivery – the goods were not received as promised.

Section 75:
If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.


What's the difference please? Chargeback looks like 'misrepresentation or breach of contract' too.

[shopper150]

The best route would probably depend on the problem that you are trying to resolve.

But Section 75 is law whereas chargeback is at the card issuers discretion.

I would go down the S75 route.

[Simpo Two]

shopper150 said:

The best route would probably depend on the problem that you are trying to resolve.

But Section 75 is law whereas chargeback is at the card issuers discretion.

I would go down the S75 route.

Thanks. I've advised the supplier of the problem and requested a refund. If they decline then I'll make the decision.

I heard that S75 can cover consequential losses as well, is that true? If so there's another £1,200 I can try to tack on.

[PF62]

Chargeback - A commercial offering by the card company. They consider the issue and if they feel you are justified refund you and then charge the retailer. However… if the retailer disagrees then they can reverse the chargeback.

S75 - Law. The card company is jointly and severally liable with the retailer. They again consider the issue, but this time in the knowledge that if you don’t like the outcome you could take them to court. If they refund you it is final and it is irrelevant if the retailer disagrees.

S75 only applies to over £100, so chargeback for anything under that.

[Simpo Two]

PF62 said:

Chargeback - A commercial offering by the card company. They consider the issue and if they feel you are justified refund you and then charge the retailer. However… if the retailer disagrees then they can reverse the chargeback.

S75 - Law. The card company is jointly and severally liable with the retailer. They again consider the issue, but this time in the knowledge that if you don’t like the outcome you could take them to court. If they refund you it is final and it is irrelevant if the retailer disagrees.

S75 only applies to over £100, so chargeback for anything under that.

Thanks. I would always contact the retailer in the first instance, not least because if they just get a chargeback out of the blue they're more likely to say 'WTF?' and disagree on principle. However if I lay the case out to them at the start they'll be more aware of their position and perhaps be more likely to concede. If not then we take it to the CC company.

Plans planned!

[PF62]

Simpo Two said:

PF62 said:

Chargeback - A commercial offering by the card company. They consider the issue and if they feel you are justified refund you and then charge the retailer. However… if the retailer disagrees then they can reverse the chargeback.

S75 - Law. The card company is jointly and severally liable with the retailer. They again consider the issue, but this time in the knowledge that if you don’t like the outcome you could take them to court. If they refund you it is final and it is irrelevant if the retailer disagrees.

S75 only applies to over £100, so chargeback for anything under that.

Thanks. I would always contact the retailer in the first instance, not least because if they just get a chargeback out of the blue they're more likely to say 'WTF?' and disagree on principle. However if I lay the case out to them at the start they'll be more aware of their position and perhaps be more likely to concede. If not then we take it to the CC company.

Plans planned!

Contacting the retailer first - for a chargeback I would agree.

However for a s75 it isn’t necessary and for some retailers who are happy to sell but not provide support if anything goes wrong, then I just go straight to the card company with a s75.

In cases involving a few hundred pounds the card company doesn’t want to waste time on it and knows they can’t fob you off without risking a complaint to the ombudsman, so frequently settles quicker than the retailer and in circumstances the retailer would almost certainly tell you to get lost.

[Simpo Two]

PF62 said:

Contacting the retailer first - for a chargeback I would agree.

However for a s75 it isn’t necessary and for some retailers who are happy to sell but not provide support if anything goes wrong, then I just go straight to the card company with a s75.

In cases involving a few hundred pounds the card company doesn’t want to waste time on it and knows they can’t fob you off without risking a complaint to the ombudsman, so frequently settles quicker than the retailer and in circumstances the retailer would almost certainly tell you to get lost.

Can you confirm the bit about being able to claim consequential losses? The sum in question is about £1200, but because they dropped the ball I ended up spending another £1200 with two other companies - so if I can have a swing at that it would be worth a go.