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

Tony Hetherington is the star investigator for the Financial Mail on Sunday, fighting readers’ corners, revealing the truth behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have run out of money. Find out how to contact him below.

DS writes: When I paid a business £690 with my Santander credit card, I did it deliberately because I had in mind the protection of Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act if something went wrong.

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

Trading Standards then advised me to claim Santander under Section 75, but they denied my claim, saying my payment went to another company.

Tony Hetherington replies: Section 75 is the enormously useful piece of law that makes a credit company jointly liable with the merchant if a major transaction goes wrong. He got a bank loan (not from Santander) to pay for the solar panels, and was not happy when the panels broke. He then received a cold call from MJA & Associates Limited, who said they could help him make a claim against the bank.

Hitch: Faulty solar panels first prompted our reader to pay £690 with a Santander credit card in the hope of gaining Section 75 protection

Hitch: Faulty solar panels first prompted our reader to pay £690 with a Santander credit card in the hope of gaining Section 75 protection

He paid MJA £690, but all he appears to have done was compose a few letters which he had to proofread. He can’t even be sure that MJA ever contacted the bank. So, he was forced to complain about the same company that was supposed to help him complain about someone else. MJA did not respond and discovered that he had changed his name to Canopy CBI Ltd.

Because you paid MJA with your Santander credit card, you asked Santander to pay you back, under Section 75. But unexpectedly, Santander denied 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 anything to MJA. Instead, you actually paid a completely different company called Squareup. And since Squareup never provided him with any services, it could hardly be said to have let him down.

Squareup was a “card processor,” Santander explained. Processed your payment on behalf of MJA. But how was he supposed to know that his payment was being diverted like this? And if you never intended to pay Squareup, does this mean the payment was unauthorized, so it should be taken away?

Santander replies that it was enough to authorize the amount, regardless of who “processed” it. I asked repeatedly how I was supposed to know this and know that this would allow Santander to circumvent the very valuable consumer protection of Section 75, but Santander offered no answer. Your loss is your gain.

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

Strangely, however, Santander told me that it rejected the idea that it was an unauthorized payment because it stated that “Mr S authorized a payment to MJA & Associates Limited and the payment went to its recipient.” However, Santander’s argument for rejecting the Section 75 claim was the exact opposite: that the payment had not gone to MJA, but to an entirely different company. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Since Santander refuses to say how it could have known that MJA diverted its payment, or even to explain what counts as a ‘processor’, I have to advise you to file a formal complaint with the Financial Ombudsman. I also gave Santander background details of MJA and the man who ran it. All the bank was saying 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 it taking so long for the tax collector to order my refund?

CR writes: I collected a delinquent pension fund and received the payment in my bank account. I knew this was taxed at the emergency rate, leaving me to make a claim for reimbursement, which I duly filed.

They gave me 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 that IRS had a backlog.

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

Frustration: CR was told Revenue had a backlog of work

Frustration: CR was told Revenue had a backlog of work

Frustration: CR was told Revenue had a backlog of work

Tony Hetherington replies: When told that Revenue & Customs was behind schedule, he was advised to wait a few more weeks.

But when she called back, she was told nothing had been done and her claim had been deferred for another four weeks.

I asked the officials of the central revenue office to intervene. They told me, ‘We apologize to Mr R and let him know that a refund has been sent to him for his overpayment of tax.’

By the time you read this it will be around £8,000 better.

Controversial head of MJA

Preventive arrest: Damien Enticott had faced robbery charges

Preventive arrest: Damien Enticott had faced robbery charges

Preventive arrest: Damien Enticott had faced robbery charges

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

In 2016, Enticott, 38, admitted to using threatening words and behavior and assaulting a police officer. He was ordered to pay costs and damages of £360 and perform 100 hours of unpaid work. But in 2019, he was back in court, this time by video link from prison. He faced charges of robbery, assault and theft of £2,700 from a Bognor Regis pub. This time, the judge said that since he had spent considerable time in pretrial detention, he would not put Enticott in jail, but instead sentenced him to a two-year community order.

While in prison awaiting trial, Enticott remained a Labor councilor at Bognor Regis. Shockingly, this was despite the discovery that he had posted a video on social media alleging that Jews drank blood. An investigation found earlier messages he posted, including that “Hitler would have the solution to the Israeli problem.”

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

Enticott’s business career has also been a misfortune. In 2021, he ran DE Data Compliance, which drew cold-calling complaints, often from 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 outstanding £1,433 injunction against it and has not submitted legally due accounts for over a year. Companies House has mandatorily canceled at least ten other companies run by Enticott.

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

If you believe you are the victim of financial crime, please write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email Due to the high volume of inquiries, personal answers cannot be given. Send only copies of the original documents, which we regret that we cannot return.

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them, we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.