TONY HETHERINGTON: Santander won’t let me use card refund rules

Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday’s ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. 

D.S. writes: When I paid a company £690 from my Santander credit card, I did this deliberately because I was mindful of the protection under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act if anything went wrong. 

I then tried unsuccessfully to contact the company, which I discovered had changed its name but still used the same address. 

I was then advised by Trading Standards to claim from Santander under Section 75, but it rejected my claim, saying that my payment went to a different company.

Tony Hetherington replies: Section 75 is the hugely useful bit of law which makes a credit company jointly liable with the merchant if a major transaction goes wrong. You took out a bank loan (not from Santander) to pay for solar panels, and you were not happy when the panels broke down. You then received a cold call from MJA & Associates Limited, which said it could help pursue a claim against the bank.

You paid MJA £690, but all it seems to have done was draft a few letters which you had to correct. You cannot even be sure MJA ever contacted the bank. So, you found yourself having to complain about the very company that was supposed to help you complain about someone else. MJA failed to respond, and you found it had changed its name to Canopy CBI Ltd.

Because you paid MJA with your Santander credit card, you asked Santander to give you back your money, under Section 75. But unexpectedly, Santander rejected your claim, saying there was no direct link between you, Santander and MJA – a strict rule under Section 75. According to Santander, you had not paid MJA at all. Instead, you had, in fact, paid a completely different firm called Squareup. And since Squareup had never provided you with any services at all, it could hardly be said to have let you down. 

Squareup was a ‘card processor’, Santander explained. It processed your payment on behalf of MJA. But how were you supposed to know that your payment was being diverted in this way? And if you never intended to pay Squareup, does this mean the payment was unauthorised so should be snatched back?

Santander’s answer to me is that it was enough for you to authorise the amount, regardless of who ‘processed’ it. I asked repeatedly how you were supposed to know this, and to be aware that this would allow Santander to sidestep the very valuable consumer protection of Section 75, but Santander offered no answer. Your loss is its gain.

And Santander added that it was not even convinced that MJA had let you down. Its contract referred vaguely to providing documents and administration, which could mean anything.

Bizarrely though, Santander told me it rejected the idea that this was an unauthorised payment because, it claimed ‘Mr S authorised a payment to MJA & Associates Limited and the payment went to its intended recipient.’ Yet Santander’s argument for rejecting the Section 75 claim was exactly the opposite – that the payment had not gone to MJA, but to a completely different company. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

With Santander refusing to say how you could have known that MJA diverted your payment, or even to explain what counts as a ‘processor’, I have to advise you to lodge a formal complaint with the Financial Ombudsman. I also gave Santander background details of MJA and the man running it. All the bank would say was that ‘Santander assesses all Section 75 claims on their individual facts and legal merits.’ Even if the facts are inexplicable, it seems.

Why is the taxman taking so long to sort my refund?

C.R. writes: I cashed in a non-performing pension pot and received payment into my bank account. I knew that this was taxed at the emergency rate, leaving me to make a refund claim, which I duly submitted. 

I was given an estimated response time of up to three weeks, but I heard nothing further so after six weeks I called and was told the Revenue had a backlog of work. 

I have told the tax staff that I am living off a small company pension and some savings, and really need this refund.

Frustration: C.R. was told the Revenue had a backlog of work

Tony Hetherington replies: When you were told that Revenue & Customs had a backlog, you were advised to wait a further few weeks. 

But when you next called, you were told nothing had been done, and your claim had been deferred for a further four weeks.

I asked officials at the Revenue’s head office to intervene. They told me: ‘We have apologised to Mr R and informed him that a refund has been sent to him for his overpayment of tax.’

By the time you read this you will be about £8,000 better off.

Controversial boss of MJA 

Remand: Damien Enticott had faced charges of burglary

The owner and sole director of MJA & Associates Limited – now called Canopy CBI – is Damien Colin Enticott, a businessman who lives in Bognor Regis. And it is not just his business background which is controversial.

In 2016, Enticott, 38, admitted using threatening words and behaviour and assaulting a police officer. He was ordered to pay costs and compensation of £360 and carry out 100 hours of unpaid work. But in 2019, he was back in court, this time by videolink from prison. He faced charges of burglary, assault and stealing £2,700 from a pub in Bognor Regis. This time the judge said that as he had spent significant time on remand, he would not jail Enticott but sentenced him to a two-year community order.

While in prison awaiting trial, Enticott remained a Labour councillor in Bognor Regis. Staggeringly, this was despite the discovery he had forwarded a video on social media which alleged that Jews drink blood. An investigation found earlier messages he posted, including that ‘Hitler would have the solution to the Israeli problem.’

When Labour suspended him from party membership, Enticott admitted posting the Facebook messages but claimed he had been caught up in a smear campaign against Labour. He resigned from the party and did not seek re-election.

Enticott’s business career has also been a disgrace. In 2021, he ran DE Data Compliance, which attracted complaints that it cold-called, often to elderly homeowners, persuading them to pay hundreds of pounds, supposedly to avoid nuisance calls. He is also the owner and director of Device Protect Limited, which has an unsatisfied £1,433 court order against it, and which has failed to file accounts legally due more than a year ago. At least ten other companies run by Enticott have been compulsorily struck off by Companies House.

Enticott was invited repeatedly to comment on reader Mr S’s experience of dealing with his company MJA, but did not respond.

If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email tony.hetherington@mailonsunday.co.uk. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned.