Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • PrincessAthena
    • By PrincessAthena 11th Sep 16, 8:26 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 21Thanks
    PrincessAthena
    Section 75
    • #1
    • 11th Sep 16, 8:26 PM
    Section 75 11th Sep 16 at 8:26 PM
    Hello Everyone


    My first ever post on these forums so please bare with me as I don't know all of the acronyms!


    My partner and I took out a timeshare with H10 last year whilst we were on holiday in the Dominican Republic. They promised us two free holidays (they signed a document to say we could have this!), and cheap holidays for the next 25 years! We realised pretty early on that it was too good to be true and that we had been scammed :-/ We made a down payment of £2000.00 on our CC and set up a regular payment of $120 (about £80 each month also on the CC) Very costly mistake! so far about £3000.00 and rising each month!
    We realised it was a scam when we tried to book one of our free holidays, to be told we had to make a payment of $200! The documents we have make no mention of having to make payments for our free holiday.
    I tried to cancel the time share with H10 as they have offices in Ireland thought it would be easy. They passed us over to the Dominican Republic who could no longer speak English, conveniently! I put in numerous complaints but they would not respond. Or at least their responses were just to pass us to different teams and then they would fob us off.


    I contacted my CC provider Lloyds who said they would look into my claim. They have managed to freeze the monthly payments so far. Although H10 seem to try to take them under a different name e.g 'dummy dollar' and sometimes it gets through!


    I put my claim in to Lloyds in June via email (which is what they told me to do after speaking to them on the phone). They responded at the end of July to ask for all documents and reasons for my claim in the post. Which I sent special delivery. I had confirmation they had received it all at the beginning of August. I called them a few weeks later to chase the progress for them to say they had all my documents but no covering letter to explain why I was making a claim! I found it hard to believe as they had all the other documents I had sent to them and the covering letter was stapled together with it all, but anyway I emailed them the covering letter.
    It is now mid September and I have still no update from Lloyds. Is there a deadline for the CC company to respond?
    Has anyone else dealt with this H10 company and been successful in getting money back? Do I go to the Financial Ombudsman as have had no luck with Lloyds? Or do I wait?




    Sorry for the essay would just really like some help!
Page 1
    • meer53
    • By meer53 11th Sep 16, 9:27 PM
    • 8,366 Posts
    • 11,922 Thanks
    meer53
    • #2
    • 11th Sep 16, 9:27 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Sep 16, 9:27 PM
    There's no deadline really. The CC company will have to liaise with the Timeshare company, they probably won't be in a hurry to respond. You can go to the FOS if you're unhappy with how Lloyds are dealing with your claim but it sounds as though they are doing something, albeit very slowly.
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 12th Sep 16, 12:09 PM
    • 3,835 Posts
    • 3,479 Thanks
    eddddy
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 16, 12:09 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 16, 12:09 PM
    It sounds awful.

    The only comment I would make is that s75 specifically only covers breach of contract or misrepresentation. (e.g. it won't provide cover for 'poor value for money' holidays etc.)

    So you need to be very specific with Lloyds about what breaches of contract occurred - e.g. by pointing at specific clauses in the contract you signed, and that the holiday company later breached.

    And/or you need to point out specific misrepresentation - e.g. in this brochure it says "...." which is untrue.


    Also, what law applies to the contract? e.g. If it was Dominican Republic law, you have to show breach of Dominican Republic Contract Law (which may be different from UK contract Law).
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 12th Sep 16, 1:19 PM
    • 3,625 Posts
    • 3,250 Thanks
    eskbanker
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 16, 1:19 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 16, 1:19 PM
    I tried to cancel the time share with H10 as they have offices in Ireland thought it would be easy. They passed us over to the Dominican Republic who could no longer speak English, conveniently! I put in numerous complaints but they would not respond. Or at least their responses were just to pass us to different teams and then they would fob us off.
    Originally posted by PrincessAthena
    Have you actually succeeded in cancelling your contract yet? If H10 are still trying to take monthly payments this would suggest that they haven't accepted your cancellation - what is the cancellation policy within the contract that you signed?
    • PrincessAthena
    • By PrincessAthena 13th Sep 16, 8:10 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    PrincessAthena
    • #5
    • 13th Sep 16, 8:10 AM
    • #5
    • 13th Sep 16, 8:10 AM
    Hello

    Thank you all for your comments 😊
    I have explained to Lloyds in my covering letter all of the breaches of contract H10 have broken. The reason we took the contract out was because they said we could have two free holidays as part of the welcome package. The contract states they are free vacations to stay in any of their hotels for 7 nights. We were made aware we would need to source flights ourselves. When we tried to book them they wanted more money for us to book the hotel stay with them. I have emails to proove this.
    Once H10 asked for this, i responded that no where in our contract does it state we have to pay anything for our free holidays & that i wished to cancel. i asked for a full refund as i felt they had breached their contract. They just continued to pass my emails to various departments within their company but no one ever gave us a response. Thats when i approached the bank.

    The contract is written under Irish law which i beleive is quite similar to UK law. As far as im aware when a contract says 'free' you should not have to pay anything to obtain your free gift or it is not considered free.

    All of this i have stated in my letter to lloyds.
    • jobbingmusician
    • By jobbingmusician 13th Sep 16, 8:30 AM
    • 18,032 Posts
    • 18,076 Thanks
    jobbingmusician
    • #6
    • 13th Sep 16, 8:30 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Sep 16, 8:30 AM
    You say that some payments from your Lloyds account 'are still slipping through'. This sounds as if it might be a breach of the DD guarantee. Have you pursued this?
    I'm the Board Guide on the Matched Betting; Referrers and Jobseeking & Training boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge posts there. Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.

    The good folk of the matched betting board are now (I hope!) supporting the Trussell Trust. Visit our donations page at justgiving, and search for jobbingmusician!
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 13th Sep 16, 9:29 AM
    • 3,835 Posts
    • 3,479 Thanks
    eddddy
    • #7
    • 13th Sep 16, 9:29 AM
    • #7
    • 13th Sep 16, 9:29 AM
    You say that some payments from your Lloyds account 'are still slipping through'. This sounds as if it might be a breach of the DD guarantee. Have you pursued this?
    Originally posted by jobbingmusician
    It's not a Direct Debit. The payments are coming from a credit card - so it will be a Continuous Payment Authority.

    But in any case. the OP has cancelled the CPA with the bank - so any further payments under that CPA should be refunded.


    (But that doesn't solve the OP's bigger problem. In fact, by cancelling the CPA and stopping payments, the Timeshare co might say the OP is in breach of contract, and sue the OP.)
    • eskbanker
    • By eskbanker 13th Sep 16, 10:34 AM
    • 3,625 Posts
    • 3,250 Thanks
    eskbanker
    • #8
    • 13th Sep 16, 10:34 AM
    • #8
    • 13th Sep 16, 10:34 AM
    I have explained to Lloyds in my covering letter all of the breaches of contract H10 have broken. The reason we took the contract out was because they said we could have two free holidays as part of the welcome package. The contract states they are free vacations to stay in any of their hotels for 7 nights. We were made aware we would need to source flights ourselves. When we tried to book them they wanted more money for us to book the hotel stay with them. I have emails to proove this.
    Once H10 asked for this, i responded that no where in our contract does it state we have to pay anything for our free holidays & that i wished to cancel. i asked for a full refund as i felt they had breached their contract. They just continued to pass my emails to various departments within their company but no one ever gave us a response. Thats when i approached the bank.

    The contract is written under Irish law which i beleive is quite similar to UK law. As far as im aware when a contract says 'free' you should not have to pay anything to obtain your free gift or it is not considered free.
    Originally posted by PrincessAthena
    Just to play devil's advocate, I can imagine their line of argument is that the $200 is some form of admin/booking fee and that the hotel stay itself is free, but obviously you have sight of all the paperwork and we don't!

    In terms of "all of the breaches of contract H10 have broken", what else is there other than applying a charge to the 'free' booking? An extra $200 in the context of £3K spent is relatively small but I'm sure this is more about the principle - however, it'll help your case to understand how it'll be perceived by independent third parties, so the scale of any breach may come into play, in that contracts can usually be terminated by either party where there is a material breach (what does yours say?). If, for the sake of argument, your claim is that H10's imposition of a $200 fee is the breach of contract, how would you feel if Lloyds simply reimbursed that charge and left you in contract?
    • meer53
    • By meer53 13th Sep 16, 9:27 PM
    • 8,366 Posts
    • 11,922 Thanks
    meer53
    • #9
    • 13th Sep 16, 9:27 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Sep 16, 9:27 PM
    A few posts on the internet state that a fee is charged if you're booking into an AI hotel with H10, is this the fee they're charging ? It's to cover the AI element of the holiday.
    • PrincessAthena
    • By PrincessAthena 17th Sep 16, 1:38 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    PrincessAthena
    Hello

    The contract states we must pay $200 to book our weeks holiday under the time share plan. However we were offered a free vacation on top of this which is seperate to the plan, anywhere we want to go with no mention of booking fee. They said we could have it as they had met their quota for sign ups that month. We also had another company called RCI, which has also charged us money for having this time share. It just seems like there are so many hidden fees that keep cropping up.

    Its more to the point that there seems to be no way of cancelling the plan at all! So many emails sent with no reply. Letters sent with no response. Phone calls just fobbing me off. And now their phone lines dont even work, its disconnected! Ive been trying for the past year to cancel & getting no where.

    I dont expect to get all my money back. But as i have been trying for almost a year to cancel this plan i'd at least want the premiums back that i have had to pay since trying to cancel.
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 17th Sep 16, 3:52 AM
    • 3,835 Posts
    • 3,479 Thanks
    eddddy
    Its more to the point that there seems to be no way of cancelling the plan at all!
    Originally posted by PrincessAthena
    Do you mean cancelling the whole timeshare contract? Does your contract say you can cancel?

    Most timeshare contracts don't allow you to cancel. Your only option might be to try to sell the timeshare - if you can find a buyer.

    If you google 'cancel timeshare' you will find lots of discussion about this.

    A few people seem to suggest that you just stop paying and wait for the debt collectors letters and solicitors letters - and hope that the timeshare company eventually give up, rather than taking you to court for breach of contract.

    Here's one site that offers advice (but I don't know how good their advice is) : http://www.timeshareconsumerassociation.org.uk/advice/how-to-cancel-timeshare/


    Edit to add:

    Selling the timeshare may not be easy. If you look on ebay you'll see lots of unsold ones for 1p, 25p, 99p and upwards - because the annual fees are more than the week's holiday is worth. But perhaps yours is a more valuable one.
    Last edited by eddddy; 17-09-2016 at 4:05 AM.
    • PrincessAthena
    • By PrincessAthena 17th Sep 16, 5:33 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    PrincessAthena
    There is a cancellation section within the contract. It states we just have to give them notification in writing, which we have done and by email. Even though I call it a time share, it is actually a contract to have a holiday in any H10 hotel for 1 week a year, at any time that year. Rather than a specific week and at one hotel as you would expect with a traditional time share.
    I don't want to withhold payment and be chased through the courts as we are looking to buy a house next year so I really don't want to ruin my credit rating.
    • PrincessAthena
    • By PrincessAthena 28th Sep 16, 2:52 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    PrincessAthena
    Good news!

    Lloyds have ruled in my favour & have agreed to pay all payments back to me.

    My worry is, what if h10 now chase me for money through the courts? Lloyds said they dont get involved with legal issues. But i thought under section 75 they agree to take any repercussions on? Just want to check my understanding
    • meer53
    • By meer53 28th Sep 16, 6:16 PM
    • 8,366 Posts
    • 11,922 Thanks
    meer53
    They may pursue you for the money through the courts. If they do, Lloyds won't be involved. As long as you cancelled within the T & C's then you should be OK.
    • Isbjorn
    • By Isbjorn 29th Sep 16, 12:01 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Isbjorn
    Section 75 - Credit (card) Company - Friend or Foe?
    All too often we hear the message to take our s75 complaint to the credit (card) company (CCC) and they will sort it out and get you a refund - NOT always TRUE, in my experience.

    I once had reason to claim for faulty and misrepresented goods, value about £400:- I got a refund in a few days, no hassle - the CCC was my FRIEND.

    Recently, however, I have just pursued two s75 claims. via the Financial Ombudsman Service for a brand new £26,000 car (£1,000 deposit paid on credit card) on grounds of not of satisfactory quality and misrepresentation - CCC dug in their heels - and both cases were declined by the FOS.

    In the latter case, the CCC's complaint form asked my permission to communicate with the merchant to conduct their investigation - as I had nothing to hide, I agreed - FATAL MISTAKE!

    Instead of asking open ended questions of the merchant, so as to extract honest and reliable testimony from the merchant as to what actually happened during the sale process, the credit card company conducted its questioning so as to 'invite responses of a certain sort' (I am advised this is the legal terminology), or with 'leading questions' if you prefer in plain English. Having been 'tipped-off', the merchant's response was simply a convenient, (for them) 'failure to recollect' the critical pre-sale conversation and, subsequently, the merchant was thereby empowered to evade providing any substantive answers to enquiries by the FOS, such that the FOS could not identify any detrimental points in the merchant's glib offerings - all the merchant had to do to achieve a stalemate was to avoid the truth of the car's true configuration becoming exposed. Furthermore, when one reads the tone of the language of the correspondence between the CCC and the merchant it's clear that they were in cahoots, as joint defendants.

    The FOS acknowledged my complaint about how the CCC had conducted their investigation with the merchant and thereby compromised the value/reliability of testimony from the merchant, but said they could not provide me with redress because the FOS are not the Regulator. In the absence of any meaningful information from the merchant, and in spite of the CCC's conduct in facilitating this paucity of information, the FOS ombudsman decided that, on the basis of the [unsubstantiated] claims from the merchant that they would 'know the product' then, the merchant is always right in this situation - this despite the fact that both the merchant and the credit card company provided false testimony as to the configuration of the car.

    By compromising the reliability of testimony from the merchant, the CCC was my FOE.

    I have since become aware that if an s75 claim is made to a CCC and subsequently becomes referred to an ombudsman, then the CCC has to foot the cost of the FOS's investigation - I am led to believe it is a 'fixed fee' in the region of £400-£500, regardless of the value of the claim.

    Thus it can be seen that if the value of the s75 claim is less than, say, £1,000, the CCC has little incentive to contest the claim and, since the majority of claims are likely to be less than £1,000, and hence settled without contest, it can be seen how an overall impression that the CCC's are the consumer's FRIEND can easily come to pervade. On the other hand, in those instances, like mine, where the claim value is high and the CCC is motivated to contest the claim, then they can very easily compromise the fair conduct of a consumer's claim - they are then your FOE. Not a bad tactic from the credit (card) company's perspective - 'tip-off' the joint-defender merchant and compromise the conduct of the investigation in an endeavour to result in a stalemate stand-off - it's then mathematically worth taking the risk of having to pay the FOS fee if the consumer takes it further, when the result of the compromising is a 50% probability winning/losing £26,000.

    My point is that I cannot see how a consumer can protect themselves from a credit (card) company deliberately sabotaging an investigation so as to make it more difficult for the consumer to make their claim successfully. I am in the process of making a report to the Financial Conduct Authority about this credit card company's behaviour - the FCA have advised me that they will not be able to help ME at all, but they will investigate and consider what might be possible to protect consumers from such behaviour.

    I am not sure what suggestions to make - all I can say is that this is what happened to me - try not to let it happen to you.
    Last edited by Isbjorn; 11-10-2016 at 1:23 PM. Reason: Subsequent post incorporated to clarify story. 'Advice' amended.
    • Isbjorn
    • By Isbjorn 3rd Oct 16, 6:54 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Isbjorn
    meer53, you missed the point; I invite you to read my original fourth paragraph again. Instead of asking open ended questions of the merchant, so as to extract honest and reliable testimony from the merchant, the credit card company conducted its questioning so as to 'invite responses of a certain sort' (I am advised this is the legal terminology), or with 'leading questions' if you prefer in plain English. When one reads the tone of the language of the correspondence between the CCC and the merchant it's clear that they were in cahoots, as joint defendants. Not a bad tactic from the credit (card) company's perspective - 'tip-off' the joint-defender merchant and compromise the conduct of the investigation in an endeavour to result in a stalemate stand-off - it's then mathematically worth taking the risk of having to pay the FOS fee if the consumer takes it further, when the result of the compromising is a 50% probability winning/losing £26,000. My point was that I cannot see how a consumer can protect themselves from a credit (card) company deliberately sabotaging an investigation so as to make it more difficult for the consumer to make their claim successfully. The FOS acknowledged my complaint about how the CCC had conducted their investigation with the merchant but said they could not provide me with redress because the FOS are not the Regulator.
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 3rd Oct 16, 7:33 PM
    • 31,064 Posts
    • 183,075 Thanks
    mjm3346
    ........
    Originally posted by Isbjorn
    and has what to do with the OP or the refund they are getting?
    • jonesMUFCforever
    • By jonesMUFCforever 3rd Oct 16, 7:42 PM
    • 23,192 Posts
    • 10,538 Thanks
    jonesMUFCforever
    Just curious - what was wrong with the car?
    What goes around - comes around
    give lots and you will always receive lots
    • Isbjorn
    • By Isbjorn 11th Oct 16, 1:58 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Isbjorn
    1. The remotely operated central locking system shuts down, unpredictably, denying access - the manual access key is NOT on the door which most likely affords the highest probability of regaining entry i.e. the door by which the car was last exited i.e. the driver's door, no, instead it is on the front passenger door, which in my instance (and many other people's instances) was too close to an immoveable object to allow access. The 'call-out' personnel could only recover the situation by forcing the driver's door open, distorting it in the process. The FOS ombudsman decided (bizzarely, in my opinion) that being randomly locked out was a "feature of the car" and therefore it was 'fit for purpose' and failed to address the necessary subsequent question, 'well, if being locked out is OK, then are the safeguards for making re-entry adequate?'
    2. I once had a cam belt break, with catastrophic damage to the engine - I did not want another car with a cam belt - the salesman told me this car had its camshafts driven by a chain - when I examined the engine, I found it had a cam belt. Despite me proving that the merchant and the credit card company's 'expert' had both provided false testimony that the car has never been available with chain driven camshafts, the FOS ombudsman, bizzarely again, decided that the merchant 'would have known the product' and therefore would not have given me false information.

    Lesson? NEVER buy a car with a keyless entry system where the emergency manual access key is NOT on the driver's door (there are lots of examples). Buy and use a body cam to record conversations with salesmen.
    • Isbjorn
    • By Isbjorn 11th Oct 16, 2:00 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Isbjorn
    Just curious - what was wrong with the car?
    Originally posted by jonesMUFCforever
    1. The remotely operated central locking system shuts down, unpredictably, denying access - the manual access key is NOT on the door which most likely affords the highest probability of regaining entry i.e. the door by which the car was last exited i.e. the driver's door, no, instead it is on the front passenger door, which in my instance (and many other people's instances) was too close to an immoveable object to allow access. The 'call-out' personnel could only recover the situation by forcing the driver's door open, distorting it in the process. The FOS ombudsman decided (bizzarely, in my opinion) that being randomly locked out was a "feature of the car" and therefore it was 'fit for purpose' and failed to address the necessary subsequent question, 'well, if being locked out is OK, then are the safeguards for making re-entry adequate?'
    2. I once had a cam belt break, with catastrophic damage to the engine - I did not want another car with a cam belt - the salesman told me this car had its camshafts driven by a chain - when I examined the engine, I found it had a cam belt. Despite me proving that the merchant and the credit card company's 'expert' had both provided false testimony that the car has never been available with chain driven camshafts, the FOS ombudsman, bizzarely again, decided that the merchant 'would have known the product' and therefore would not have given me false information.

    Lesson? NEVER buy a car with a keyless entry system where the emergency manual access key is NOT on the driver's door (there are lots of examples). Buy and use a body cam to record conversations with salesmen.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

371Posts Today

2,186Users online

Martin's Twitter