Getting a Section 75 refund on a Season Ticket

[Panda]

Probably a bit more complicated than that. Chargebacks have a 120-day limit from the date of purchase.

You are referring to Visa and MasterCard - there is no time limit for American Express.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Another example is if you pay for a ticket (or indeed anything) with PayPal. The service you purchased with the card is a payment being made on your behalf and you can't claim S75 protection on whatever it was you were buying.

But even if you can't claim S75 protection, Paypal have their own "Buyer Protection" scheme, right? And that's backed up by the fact that IIRC they are now a "Banking institution" in their own right?

 

[joncombe]

Well done to Amex I say. I had a dispute recently with South West Trains where I booked a ticket on the website. But the collection number they gave didn't work so although paying for the tickets I could not collect them. SWT at the station and on twitter just directed me to call their customer relations number (which is NOT free). After 30 minutes waiting for my call to be answered I gave up. One call to Amex, on a free number, answered in less than 1 minute and the money was back in my account. It's really not accetible to take money for a ticket you can't deliver and then direct you to a telephone line they don't answer.

Perhaps it is only if they got more "chargebacks" from card companys will the TOCs improve?

 

[Antman]

There's a subtlety that I think you may have missed. When you purchase a season ticket there are two contracts involved. (Pardon the inaccurate use of language, I know what I want to say but can't quite express it clearly).

Consider what happens if you purchase the season ticket through an agent - e.g. The Trainline. The first contract is between you and The Trainline, they act as your agent to do the needful to get a season ticket created and delivered to you. Once the RDG accepts your money and prints the ticket, there is a second contract for transportation between yourself and the TOCs on whose trains that ticket is valid.

When you receive the ticket, The Trainline has fulfilled their contractual obligations. If you subsequently are unable to travel (e.g. due to strikes) your redress needs to be from the TOCs concerned, not from The Trainline.

I believe you have misinterpreted the role of the agent in the transaction.

The first question is who the agent is acting for; is it acting for the purchaser or the supplier.

Taking the example quoted in a different circumstance, consider a holiday booked through a travel agent and the tour operator went bust before you left.

Do you think the credit card company could get away with saying "tough, we have no liability because they booked the the holiday and you got a booking reference from the agent and that was all they were required to do"?

As this has happened many times over the last 40 years, and the card companies have paid out, I think they know this wouldn't work.

 

[najaB]

Taking the example quoted in a different circumstance, consider a holiday booked through a travel agent and the tour operator went bust before you left.

Do you think the credit card company could get away with saying "tough, we have no liability because they booked the the holiday and you got a booking reference from the agent and that was all they were required to do"?

Not comparable as there are different and specific rules governing package holidays.

 

[anme]

Does anyone else find this story a bit suspicious?

 

[35B]

Does anyone else find this story a bit suspicious?

I find it extremely interesting, but note that the bank in question are base somewhere badly affected by this dispute, and may well have had their own reasons for granting this application given the likely outcomes.

 

[Antman]

Not comparable as there are different and specific rules governing package holidays.

Perhaps you could enlighten us how s75 applies differently to package holidays bought through an agent using a credit card.

Or are you thinking of the ATOL protection which exists and is unrelated to s75.

 

[najaB]

Or are you thinking of the ATOL protection which exists and is unrelated to s75.

Yes. As that is the protection that you would be most likely to take advantage of if you have booked a package holiday and the operator goes bust.

 

[Antman]

Just because you can claim through ATOL doesn't mean s75 doesn't apply!

So the example I gave is appropriate and an card company couldn't avoid their s75 responsibility by the agent handing over a piece of paper.

 

[island]

But even if you can't claim S75 protection, Paypal have their own "Buyer Protection" scheme, right? And that's backed up by the fact that IIRC they are now a "Banking institution" in their own right?

PayPal's "buyer protection" scheme has, in my experience, more holes than a block of Emmenthal. PayPal is, to my knowledge an E-Money issuer rather than a bank.

 

[anme]

PayPal's "buyer protection" scheme has, in my experience, more holes than a block of Emmenthal. PayPal is, to my knowledge an E-Money issuer rather than a bank.

I have never understood why anyone would use PayPal to pay a merchant unless it was absolutely the only option (and then I would really look hard for another merchant).

 

[najaB]

I have never understood why anyone would use PayPal to pay a merchant unless it was absolutely the only option (and then I would really look hard for another merchant).

They are highly effective in the role of financial intermediary.

 

[island]

The main reasons are that they save your card details so you can pay using a username and password rather than digging out (or remembering) a 15 or 16 digit card number, and they can be a way of using an American Express card with a merchant that does not accept them directly.

 

[anme]

They are highly effective in the role of financial intermediary.

How so? I can understand why people use PayPal for say, buying and selling on eBay (although I would always try to avoid it myself). But why use it for buying a train ticket, or anything else where more conventional means are available such as credit or debit card?

 

[najaB]

How so? I can understand why people use PayPal for say, buying and selling on eBay (although I would always try to avoid it myself). But why use it for buying a train ticket, or anything else where more conventional means are available such as credit or debit card?

Because it can be convenient to have multiple funding methods linked to a single login. They also offer 'pay after delivery' short term, interest-free credit.

 

[Abpj17]

PayPal's "buyer protection" scheme has, in my experience, more holes than a block of Emmenthal. PayPal is, to my knowledge an E-Money issuer rather than a bank.

Paypal is a bank in the EU at least (it's not in the US). It is authorised in Luxembourg.

It's not authorised or registered in the UK as an e-money issuer (or a bank). It used to be an EMI authorised in the UK, but that stopped in 2007.

It can operate as a bank in the UK (i.e. accept deposits, make payments) on the basis of an EU passport.

But, I believe the way it provides services to customers mean you don't hold a bank account; and funds with paypal are protected by FSCS.

A buyer protection scheme (i.e. something is bad about the purchase) has nothing to do with deposit protection (i.e. the bank goes insolvent).

 

[Wookiee]

One would need to buy the ticket directly from Southern. Using trainline or any other TOC website would not work.

Not read the rest of this thread yet, but I have to disagree with this. All you'd have to prove is that Southern set the fare for the chosen season ticket and they, therefore, receive the majority of the income.

EDIT: I've now read the rest of the thread and can see that this is a murky area. Speaking as someone who paid for a £3.5k season ticket with Amex, but bought it at my local SWT station and has been massively affected by the ongoing disruption, I'm beginning to feel a bit miffed!

 

[najaB]

Not read the rest of this thread yet, but I have to disagree with this.

Suggest you read the rest of the thread....

 

[Wookiee]

Suggest you read the rest of the thread....

Beat you to it!

 

[cjohnson]

BBC Radio 4's Moneybox programme featured an interview with the season ticket holder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0890cvf

The presenter commented that it was not clear whether the refund was made under Section 75 or another internal Amex refund procedure.

 

[Haywain]

The Times on Saturday reported that American Express were unaware of having given any such refund. So if they have done, they didn't do it for publicity!

 

[CharlieSpotted]

How so? I can understand why people use PayPal for say, buying and selling on eBay (although I would always try to avoid it myself). But why use it for buying a train ticket, or anything else where more conventional means are available such as credit or debit card?

Simply - convenience and trust. The Paypal checkout works very well and avoids having to enter and update card details on every website you deal with (and avoids having to enter any details at all on some sites!). I feel like I can "trust" Paypal's checkout process more than the bespoke checkout provided on some smaller sites.

Amazon and Google provide similar checkout processes for 3rd party sites too, of course, and I've used those too in the past. But the Paypal checkout option is pretty ubiquitous now.

 

[anme]

The Times on Saturday reported that American Express were unaware of having given any such refund. So if they have done, they didn't do it for publicity!

As I said above, I find this whole story very suspicious. If a refund was actually given by Amex, I suspect there are factors behind this that are not public.

 

[route:oxford]

The Times on Saturday reported that American Express were unaware of having given any such refund. So if they have done, they didn't do it for publicity!

American Express are not the exclusive issuers of Amex Cards.

My Amex is issued by MBNA.

 

[34D]

So has 'Sean' committed a byelaw offence? Could Southern have a surprise for him before the mags?

 

[Deerfold]

So has 'Sean' committed a byelaw offence? Could Southern have a surprise for him before the mags?

What do you base that on?

 

[34D]

What do you base that on?

It was a question rather than a statement.

But a ticket without a payment is surely not a valid one?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The use of Section 75 for Southern season ticket claims was featured on last night's Martin Lewis Money Show on ITV, so we may be hearing of more such claims very soon...

 

[najaB]

It was a question rather than a statement.

But a ticket without a payment is surely not a valid one?

The ticket was valid when the passenger boarded.