Reply to: Whose got the trousers on?

[doodab]

I buy stuff off of the internet all the time with my Visa Debit, and any time the goods haven't arrived the purchase has been covered under exactly the same Chargeback scheme as Visa Credit cards use.

Actually this isn't a marketing myth. Section 75 consumer credit act applies to credit cards but not debit cards. Chargeback is something different.

Most credit cards also offer theft and accident protection on things you buy with them.

I do most of my spending on one. Over the course of a year the cashback adds up to quite a lot.

[darmstadt]

Likewise at least one department store (Manor) is offering their own credit cards, tied into a loyalty card scheme. Again, good discounts are available to entice you to get one. I am pretty sure this lot will be accumulating data on your spending patterns.

Yep, same here. My one credit card is with Karstadt which is also a loyalty card

[Sysman]

I wonder if there are any on here who had or have one and wish they didn't.

I did in the early nineties when a couple of customers went bankrupt. My credit cards (with generous limits for back then) meant I could still rack up hotel and travel expenses when I should have stopped working instead. Slow payers were effectively using my credit as a free loan as well.

[Sysman]

This one is true but it is a little more complicated than that. If you have no form of credit like young person or someone that has never had a loan card etc you have a blank credit record. This can cause issues as your credit worthiness cannot be verified. Having no history in some cases can be as unhelpful as a bad one. I had a friend who got refused two loans on the basis of no credit history.

Back in the days when credit cards were quite a new thing and mortgages were difficult to get, I took out a small bank loan for a car. That did give me a credit record and I found it relatively easy to get a mortgage.

If you are already active in the system they absolutely yes, a credit card makes no difference.

I got my first credit card because of a lengthy delay between submitting expenses claims and being reimbursed. It gave me a much needed buffer when I'd bought my first house.

[Sysman]

I actually don't use them too much as Germany is still very much a cash based society (i.e if I went into Media Markt or Saturn to buy gadgets I would have to pay cash.)

Same in Switzerland, it's a very cash based society, but that is changing. About 5 years ago the Swiss Railways (SBB) started pushing credit cards in a big way; you get an application form each time your half price pass comes up for renewal, with a discount if you take up their offer. They are obviously doing this to try and shift people to paying for tickets online or via smart phones.

Likewise at least one department store (Manor) is offering their own credit cards, tied into a loyalty card scheme. Again, good discounts are available to entice you to get one. I am pretty sure this lot will be accumulating data on your spending patterns.

[escapeUK]

No, dear. That there is what grown-ups do when someone makes a point that informs them of something useful, verifiable and that they didn't actually know. By contrast, all you've done is demonstrate your own naivety by making apocryphal statements about how the credit card marketing people told you that not having a credit card meant you'd never get a mortgage or a car loan. Pfffft!!

It takes a big woman to admit she was wrong.

[mudskipper]

I wonder if there are any on here who had or have one and wish they didn't.

trouser wearer or not

You can have an op for that. PM NLadyUK for details.

[EternalOptimist]

I wonder if there are any on here who had or have one and wish they didn't.

trouser wearer or not

[Gentile]

So you were naive?

No, dear. That there is what grown-ups do when someone makes a point that informs them of something useful, verifiable and that they didn't actually know. By contrast, all you've done is demonstrate your own naivety by making apocryphal statements about how the credit card marketing people told you that not having a credit card meant you'd never get a mortgage or a car loan. Pfffft!!

[escapeUK]

Well, that's certainly a valid benefit.

So you were naive?

[Gentile]

Your link doesn't work for me.

However, there's a nice summary here Visa / Mastercard chargeback: Protection for debit card purchases...

The main difference for most purchases is the cover for future issues - you're not restricted to 120 days.
But a huge difference is that section 75 covers you for the whole cost even if you only pay part on your card. Both these issues apply to a news story recently where a woman had the whole cost of her PPI implants refunded under section 75 because she'd paid the deposit for the procedure on her card. It had been 18 months earlier, so she would have got zilch on chargeback.

Well, that's certainly a valid benefit. I can't argue with that. Your article does also highlight that whilst I've been perfectly happy with the way any enquiries I've made under Chargeback have been handled by my own bank, not all banks that issue Visa Debits are as diligent. Possibly because banks don't have a legal obligation to provide the cover that my bank has provided. You can take any complaints to the Financial Ombudsman if your bank doesn't pay up, of course, and under most cases that are covered by Section 75 I think your complaint would be upheld, but it would still be a hassle if you had to go down that road. I couldn't find any info on cases where you'd only made partial payment using a Debit card and the goods were faulty. Though I suspect in that case as you say that the full cost wouldn't be covered. The Sale of Goods Act would still apply, though.

[mudskipper]

What extra protection do you think Section 75 provides? This article contains a fairly good summary of the differences between Section 75, Chargeback, and the security/insurance provided by other payment methods. The only material difference between Section 75 and Chargeback appears to be that in some cases some providers don't cover items less than £100. Conversely, purchases over £30k aren't covered by Section 75 but are covered by Chargeback. The one time I had to make a claim (because the item didn't arrive and the vendor's 'help' line was anything but), the item cost less than £100, and my Visa Debit provider (First Direct) still covered it with no quibbles.

Your link doesn't work for me.

However, there's a nice summary here Visa / Mastercard chargeback: Protection for debit card purchases...

The main difference for most purchases is the cover for future issues - you're not restricted to 120 days.
But a huge difference is that section 75 covers you for the whole cost even if you only pay part on your card. Both these issues apply to a news story recently where a woman had the whole cost of her PPI implants refunded under section 75 because she'd paid the deposit for the procedure on her card. It had been 18 months earlier, so she would have got zilch on chargeback.

[Old Hack]

What extra protection do you think Section 75 provides? This article contains a fairly good summary of the differences between Section 75, Chargeback, and the security/insurance provided by other payment methods. The only material difference between Section 75 and Chargeback appears to be that in some cases some providers don't cover items less than £100. Conversely, purchases over £30k aren't covered by Section 75 but are covered by Chargeback. The one time I had to make a claim (because the item didn't arrive and the vendor's 'help' line was anything but), the item cost less than £100, and my Visa Debit provider (First Direct) still covered it with no quibbles.

If you and I applied for a credit card today, you would pay more than double the interest I would.

That not an advantage?

[Gentile]

As usual Gentile argues her points like a woman whos never going to get a fella.

Is that one of the other exclusive 'benefits' that you think comes from using a credit card? Since you probably do need to pay anyone of the opposite sex to be with you, perhaps in your case that is indeed true.

[Gentile]

Section 75 only applies to credit cards. It provides much more protection than the standard chargeback mechanism. I always pay for major purchases (at least partly) on credit card for the added protection.

What extra protection do you think Section 75 provides? This article contains a fairly good summary of the differences between Section 75, Chargeback, and the security/insurance provided by other payment methods. The only material difference between Section 75 and Chargeback appears to be that in some cases some providers don't cover items less than £100. Conversely, purchases over £30k aren't covered by Section 75 but are covered by Chargeback. The one time I had to make a claim (because the item didn't arrive and the vendor's 'help' line was anything but), the item cost less than £100, and my Visa Debit provider (First Direct) still covered it with no quibbles.