Chargeback vs Section 75

That’s not entirely true. I am a big fan of Curve but it’s important to know that if you’re in the U.K, you lose any protection that would normally come from Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. This is important for some people/transactions such as flights, where an airline could go bust after you purchase the ticket, before you fly.

I know that Curve can use the MasterCard chargeback process. But being covered by a private company policy is not the same thing as being covered by U.K. legislation.

Can you be more specific? Why does it matter in case of state mandated protections?

In the airline bankruptcy case you can use chargeback to dispute the charge and get your money back because you didn’t receive the product you paid for :slight_smile:

1 Like

Under a chargeback, there is no guarantee that you will get any money back for undelivered/faulty goods or services. A card issuer could decline your claim. (I’m not saying they will, but they could)

Under Section 75 of the CCA, the card issuing company is legally on the hook

More information on it here:

There are pros and cons for each, but they are not the same. For most purchases, giving up S.75 isn’t a big deal, but for some it will be.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic for the OP… sorry

In the good old bad old days of charging for credit cards, I would book flights using a debit card to save a few quid. I then got burned by the Malev collapse. I used the Visa chargeback process and in short got nothing. Since then I’ve always put all purchases on a credit card (within reason, even if there’s a charge, though not an issue now). With a credit card with S75 protection, there’s more guaranteed protection as the credit card company is jointly liable. I’ve used it a number of times since then with success.

1 Like

Not to worry, it’s a good topic and therefore made into its own :slightly_smiling_face: Thank you for contributing to the conversation!

Slightly related…can you confirm that Curve is a debit card and not a credit card? Because I was refused by a merchant (the Deposit protection service) who declared it was a credit card.

It is a debit card. Says so on the back :grin:

Agreed - for bigger purchases I would be a bit worried to rely on MC/Visa chargeback processes. S75 much stronger.

Thanks jkb :+1:
Must have been the word above that threw them. “Commercial “

It’d be nice if you added to the contract that a customer signs that you would honor any S.75 protection as if Curve were a credit card, making Curve jointly liable to pay out any funds in the event of a collapse.

This would encourage further spending for people from credit cards (I would certainly use my Curve card a lot more!!)

cc @Curve_Marie

It’d also let people have a lot more trust in Curve as the purchase protection isn’t the same as saying “I will assume the same liability as S.75 makes credit card issuers liable for”

P.S. I would only expect this kind of protection to be extended to underlying credit cards, not debit.

Why would a debit card provider take on the additional liabilities of a credit card? For what benefit would that bring to Curve? Nothing but a lot of additional liabilities for no gain at all. Not unless you would like to pay an annual fee (over and above what it cost for the metal cards) for the privilege.

1 Like

Increased usage due to more customer trust from the S.75 guarantee.

Additional liabilities for additional big money being put through Curve.

I would actually use my credit card through Curve if they could offer me the same protection that my credit card could.

I wouldn’t however do that now. On top of that if Curve was recognized as credit it’d be usable for deposits at hotels/car rentals. It would also raise the interchange fee cap for Curve to allow them to bring 0.1% income extra from interchange fees.

Why would I pay an annual fee when they’re going to make money from this? Airline providers etc don’t go bust every second.

On top of that their purchase protection should in theory be costing them similar to S.75 would cost them :smiley: unless they’re refusing claims to avoid forking out :wink:

Sigh no as section 75 is a lot wider in it’s scope. With cashback there are time limits, plus there are limits on what you can actually claim for. So that saves money in and of itself.

Not being rude but you can’t compere and contrast section 75 with cashback if you don’t really know the difference between them. Due to your comment above…Well…

I can compare them. Curve is making out as if their protection is better than S.75 to encourage people to use their credit cards, I’m presuming.

Actually, Curve literally compared them in a table, when they released it!

Then they’re giving people issues when they try to claim on their “protection”.

Maybe you should try and actually not being rude by the way, instead of putting “not being rude” at the beginning.

No I stand by what I have said, as what you’ve said (cashback and section 75 would cost Curve the same) is frankly :exploding_head:. I wasn’t talking above Curve comparing I was talking about yourself.

Anyway I wish you a good day. :slightly_smiling_face:

Well of course they will for the reasons I’ve mentioned above…

Just to wrap things up here, credit cards issuers are paid slightly more interchange which makes having section 75 possible. Debit card providers are paid slightly less which makes it uneconomic for them to offer such a service but they have a watered down system called…Cashback.

Second point is the fact that 1 is more powerful (Section 75) and one has many get out clauses and is not mandatory like section 75 is by law. As you’ve seen above ie people getting refused.

Chargeback* I let it go once but I need to make sure you do understand what you’re talking about.

It’s possible :slight_smile: probably not since they get out of paying what they should be (after implying their protection service will actually be equivalent or even better S.75)

I don’t believe the interchange fee is what’s used to do this, to be honest.

Regardless, I would be assuming Curve cards would be swapped to a credit BIN under my plan to allow them to be obligated by S.75 (this would also increase acceptance at certain hotels and car rentals)