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

Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday’s chief investigator. He battles the reader’s corner, reveals the truth that lies behind closed doors, and wins victories for those left out of pocket. Below you can read how to contact him.

DS writes: When I paid a business £690 with my Santander credit card I did it on purpose as I was aware of the protections under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act if something went wrong.

I then unsuccessfully tried to contact the company, which I found had changed its name but was still using the same address.

I was then advised by Trading Standards to file a claim with Santander under section 75 but it rejected my claim saying my payment went to another company.

Tony Hetherington replies: Section 75 is the hugely helpful piece of law that holds 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 weren’t happy when the panels broke. You then received a cold call from MYA & Associates Limited saying it could assist in filing a claim against the bank.

You paid MJA £690 but all it seems to have done was draft a few letters for you to correct. You’re not even sure if MJA ever contacted the bank. So you found yourself complaining about the company you were supposed to help complain about someone else. MYA did not respond and you discovered that it had changed its name to Canopy CBI Ltd.

Because you paid MYA with your Santander credit card, you asked Santander to give you your money back, pursuant to Section 75. But unexpectedly, Santander denied your claim, saying there was no direct link between you, Santander and MYA – a strict rule under Section 75. According to Santander, you didn’t pay any LTA at all. Instead, you had effectively paid a completely different company called Squareup. And since Squareup has never provided you with any service, it can 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 could you know that your payment was being diverted in this way? And if you never intended to pay Squareup, does that mean the payment was unauthorized and should be reclaimed?

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

And Santander added that it wasn’t even convinced that MYA had failed you. The contract vaguely referred to providing documents and records, which could mean anything.

Oddly, however, Santander told me it rejected the idea that this was an unauthorized payment, claiming ‘Mr S authorized a payment to MYA & Associates Limited and the payment went to the intended recipient.’ Yet Santander’s argument for denying the Section 75 claim was just the opposite: that the payment had not gone to LTA, 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 explain what counts as a ‘processor’, I must advise you to file a formal complaint with the Financial Ombudsman. I also gave Santander background on MYA and the man who ran it. All the bank wanted to say was that ‘Santander evaluates all Article 75 claims on their individual facts and legal merits’. Even if the facts are inexplicable, it seems.

Why does the tax authorities take so long to sort my refund?

CR writes: I cashed in a non-performing pension pot and received a payment to my bank account. I knew this was charged at the emergency rate which required me to file a refund request, which I duly submitted.

I was given an estimated response time of up to three weeks, but I didn’t hear anything else, so after six weeks I called and was told the IRS was in arrears.

I told the IRS that I live on a small company pension and some savings, and that I really need this refund.

Frustration: CR was told that the IRS had a backlog

Tony Hetherington replies: When you were told that the Tax and Customs Administration had a backlog, you were advised to wait a few more weeks.

But the next time you called you were told nothing had been done and your claim was postponed for another four weeks.

I asked officials at the Tax and Customs Administration’s headquarters to intervene. They told me, “We have apologized to Mr. R and let him know that he has received a refund for his overpaid tax.”

By the time you read this, you’ll be about $8,000 better off.

Controversial boss of MJA

Remand: Damien Enticott was charged with burglary

The owner and sole director of MYA & Associates Limited – now called Canopy CBI – is Damien Colin Enticott, a businessman living in Bognor Regis. And it’s not just his business background that’s controversial.

In 2016, Enticott, 38, admitted using threatening words and behavior and assaulting a police officer. He was ordered to pay costs and damages of £360 and to perform 100 hours of unpaid work. But in 2019, he faced court again, this time via video link from prison. He was charged with burglary, assault and stealing £2,700 from a pub in Bognor Regis. This time, the judge said that since he had spent a lot of time in remand, he would not jail Enticott, but sentence him to two years of community service.

While in prison awaiting trial, Enticott remained a Labor councilor in Bognor Regis. Astonishingly, this was despite the discovery that he had forwarded a video on social media claiming that Jews drink blood. An investigation found previous posts he posted, including that “Hitler would have the solution to the Israeli problem.”

When Labor suspended him from party membership, Enticott admitted posting the Facebook messages but claimed he was involved 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 headed DE Data Compliance, which sparked complaints that it made cold calls, often to older homeowners, to persuade 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 injunction against it and has filed no legally due bills over a year ago. At least ten other companies run by Enticott have been forcibly delisted by Companies House.

Enticott was repeatedly invited to comment on the experience of the reader, Mr. S., with his company MYA, but did not respond.

If you believe you have been the victim of financial misconduct, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email tony.hetherington@mailonsunday.co.uk. Due to the large number of questions, no personal answers can be given. Only send copies of original documents, which unfortunately cannot be returned.