PayPal came back to me and said that since it’s over 180 days they’re going to reject the refund request. I’m going to go and try my credit card provider/bank now and see if there is a different response (although the Westpac website does say that there is a special process after 120 days, so I’m still assuming I’ll be getting nothing back)
Yup - I even searched the London Gazette record and could find no indication that IPs have been appointed. I am not sure how one is supposed to act on this - the directors are opening themselves more widely to wrongful trading accusations by not appointing liquidators, but I am not sure to whom one complains.
You can still pursue a section 75 claim.
Not in New Zealand, unfortunately.
Nor Australia
I just had a “quick” look through what looks like the Australian equivalent of the legislation the UK folk are all invoking - the Aus version seems to be Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
It is long, but section 278 seems to be very similar to the UK version. Perhaps not surprising that equivalent laws exist in various jurisdictions. The EU equivalent wasn’t hard to find either
Text below seems to imply that Aus credit providers are equally liable.
the linked credit provider who is a party to the contract, and the supplier of a related supply, are jointly and severally liable to the consumer for the amount of the loss or damage.
Check section 278 out anyway, and ask a proper lawyer, not some random from an internet forum Hopefully there is equivalent protection.
I didn’t check NZ I’m afraid @JonoB - definitely worth a Google for consumer protection laws though.
I checked my credit card cover out of interest, for the NZ Mastercard. It covers loss and damage, but I took loss to mean thief, lost in the post etc, not the failure for the seller to send the goods. Perhaps I’m wrong about that?
I’m making the kids’ lunches, so can’t immediately check, but “loss” in the EU version I looked up was pretty broadly defined.
Hrm, but this doesn’t look good
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) the supplier has been dissolved or the winding up of the supplier has commenced; or
Anyway, I’m really not in any way legally trained, it’s worth a look I thought. (Plus, if they haven’t formally announced the receivers, maybe there’s wiggle room that they haven’t “commenced” yet?)
I don’t want to encourage false hope either, I’m sure in Aus there’s knowledge about S. 278 as there is about S. 75 in the UK
I think that just means if the administration or winding up process has already started at the time you make the transaction.
For example if you used a CC to make a “fire sale” purchase from the company as it tried to shift stock to reduce its liabilities, you wouldn’t be covered.
They will be hoping you give up. As you say, remind them you’re claiming under S75 and they’re jointly liable.
They have 8 weeks to respond from your original claim or off to the FOS who will almost certainly find in your favour.
As I’ve said before, lenders hate S75 and some will make it difficult for you. Don’t let them…
Agreed, my bank told me it would take 60 days to process my S75 claim.
I presume they’re taking as long as possible before meeting my claim.
Just a short update on the Section 75 claim for the WH fiasco. Lloyds Mastercard resolved the issue in 2 weeks from me writing (and talking) and are making the payment
Very impressed with Lloyds ams hugely grateful to everyone who posted wise counsel here and of course, the Forum for allowing that to happen. Wishing everyone else with a claim a speedy successful outcome.
My bank First Direct put the onus on the supplier, so credited my account and stated the supplier has 60 days to challenge it…
S75 Claim
4 weeks after submitting evidence my main uk bank cc provider have honored my claim.
Thanks to @Richard.Dane and the forum for allowing the thread to run, it’s been very helpful to share my own experience and read those of fellow members.
Good luck to those who are still awaiting a resolution and hopefully will see a positive outcome
Not advertised at all, from what I can see. Is this a limited release or an entirely new business line? One would think they’d either update their website or send out a notice to their email contacts…
After receiving an unintelligible letter from the bank (including the wrong transaction date of December), I’ve with great difficulty managed to establish that, 4 weeks on, they are treating this as a Chargeback which may take a further 50 days to determine. I paid by credit card on 1 September but I gather they are using the date Witch Hat declared they had ceased trading as the relevant date for Chargeback purposes. Sounds like displacement behaviour to me. We’ll see how it goes but looks like FOS it will be for me at the 8 week stage.
I’ll let you know how I get on - having got back from a few weeks’ holiday over the weekend, I called up Westpac Mastercard support today. They’ve taken all my details and will get back to me. They said that it would take up to 10 business day to assess the dispute request.
The nice thing was that the wait for the call centre was 40 minutes, but they’ve got a callback option, so I took that.
The Witch Hat website has now changed and is now only showing the insolvency notice, all other pages have gone.
Thanks for the update.
Surprised they aren’t showing the IP’s identity though. And still using the current tense “are being appointed” which appears inappropriate as the IP should have been appointed some time ago
It is a pity they are gone, maybe they made errors ,but everybody does in life….
I liked there Morgana interface cables, improved sound for a realistic price….And if there is no serious concurrency anymore for good cables there is a change the price for original Naim cabling will go up…….