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
    • iwasyoungonce
    • By iwasyoungonce 12th Oct 17, 5:06 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    iwasyoungonce
    Section 75 claim (DCS)
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 17, 5:06 PM
    Section 75 claim (DCS) 12th Oct 17 at 5:06 PM
    Was told by my card provider that they cannot accept my section 75 claim as they cannot establish a Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement.

    Although the payment came from my credit card they cannot establish who the contracting parties are as I do not have a contract or invoice for my payment just the statement with the transaction and name of supplier who have since been closed down by the official receiver, also they cannot establish the terms of the purchase to determine if the seller was in breach of contract or misrepresentation occurred.

    Any constructive advice welcome.
Page 1
    • zx81
    • By zx81 12th Oct 17, 5:11 PM
    • 13,682 Posts
    • 14,143 Thanks
    zx81
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 5:11 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 5:11 PM
    That would be correct.

    A non specific payment doesn't provide any evidence.

    You need an invoice and a contract.
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 12th Oct 17, 5:57 PM
    • 5,281 Posts
    • 4,919 Thanks
    eddddy
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 5:57 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 5:57 PM
    If you feel strongly enough, and depending on the evidence you have, you could try making a claim against the CC company in the small claims court.

    Then you'd be playing by the court's rules, not the CC company's rules.

    Essentially, the court would decide 'on the balance of probabilities' whether a DCS relationship existed, and whether there was a breach of contract.

    For example, if you showed the court evidence of a payment to 'ACME fashions' for £150, plus an 'ACME fashions' £150 raincoat that was not fit for purpose (plus your witness statement of what happened) - the court might decide that on the balance of probabilities that a DCS relationship existed and a breach of contract occurred.
    • jonesMUFCforever
    • By jonesMUFCforever 12th Oct 17, 6:12 PM
    • 24,095 Posts
    • 11,372 Thanks
    jonesMUFCforever
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 6:12 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 6:12 PM
    OP we have no idea if we think you have a case because you have given no clues as to what has gone wrong?
    What goes around - comes around
    give lots and you will always receive lots
    • iwasyoungonce
    • By iwasyoungonce 12th Oct 17, 7:47 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    iwasyoungonce
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:47 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:47 PM
    I purchased "carbon credits" however I paid over the telephone so no receipt given at point of sale, I did receive a share certificate but it doesn't state any terms and conditions, subsequently the official receiver closed them down in the public interest due to suspicions it was a ponzi scheme, carbon credits were never intended to be sold to individuals so I'm saying it was misrepresentation by the sales rep.
    • derps
    • By derps 12th Oct 17, 9:01 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 70 Thanks
    derps
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:01 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:01 PM
    Why did you want carbon credits, so nobody can object to your farts?
    • dj1471
    • By dj1471 12th Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    • 874 Posts
    • 575 Thanks
    dj1471
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    I'm guessing it's related to this:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-carbon-credit-network-unpicked-by-the-insolvency-service

    Have you contacted the Official Receiver about getting your money back?
    The Official Receiver now appointed to administer the liquidation of these latest companies will be glad to hear from investors who have dealt with them.
    If the company can be identified from the transaction and is listed as one of the ones closed down then that's reasonable evidence that misrepresentation occurred, you will however have a challenge persuading the CC company of this and you still need sufficient evidence to demonstrate the DCS relationship.

    I suspect you will have to raise a complaint and escalate to the FOS, whether they will side with you is anyone's guess.
    • jonesMUFCforever
    • By jonesMUFCforever 12th Oct 17, 10:27 PM
    • 24,095 Posts
    • 11,372 Thanks
    jonesMUFCforever
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 10:27 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 10:27 PM
    IMO no chance. This is similar to someone going into a bookie putting a bet on and wanting to complain because the horse did not win.
    What goes around - comes around
    give lots and you will always receive lots
    • dj1471
    • By dj1471 12th Oct 17, 11:00 PM
    • 874 Posts
    • 575 Thanks
    dj1471
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:00 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 11:00 PM
    IMO no chance. This is similar to someone going into a bookie putting a bet on and wanting to complain because the horse did not win.
    Originally posted by jonesMUFCforever
    It really isn't, unless the bookie told them it was a £100,000 racehorse that was guaranteed to win when in fact it was an old nag they found in a nearby field.

    The key here is that the "investment" was misrepresented (likely during a cold call) and misrepresentation is covered by Section 75.

    I don't rate the OPs chances with Section 75 either, their best bet is to see if they can get any kind of refund from the Official Receiver.
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 13th Oct 17, 12:40 AM
    • 10,329 Posts
    • 6,626 Thanks
    bigadaj
    It really isn't, unless the bookie told them it was a £100,000 racehorse that was guaranteed to win when in fact it was an old nag they found in a nearby field.

    The key here is that the "investment" was misrepresented (likely during a cold call) and misrepresentation is covered by Section 75.

    I don't rate the OPs chances with Section 75 either, their best bet is to see if they can get any kind of refund from the Official Receiver.
    Originally posted by dj1471
    It's really no different to binary options, development land in obscure foreign climes etc

    They won't have been very good scammers if there is anything left for the receiver to disburse to creditors.
    • bris
    • By bris 13th Oct 17, 12:59 AM
    • 6,937 Posts
    • 5,956 Thanks
    bris
    Aren't carbon credits an investment? So it's a business deal which isn't covered by S75 anyway.


    They are right in the fact you have no case regardless but they also have an uncovered product to decline it on too.
    • smala01
    • By smala01 17th Oct 17, 3:02 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 101 Thanks
    smala01
    Isn't it a better approach to argue that this was a fraudulent transaction, since the payment was taken by a company that is in no relation to the document you have on the share certificate? You authorized a transaction to XYZ ltd but the transaction was taken by a third party that you have no knowledge of, hence the transaction was in fact unauthorized.
    • Dobbibill
    • By Dobbibill 17th Oct 17, 8:31 AM
    • 2,373 Posts
    • 3,479 Thanks
    Dobbibill
    Isn't it a better approach to argue that this was a fraudulent transaction, since the payment was taken by a company that is in no relation to the document you have on the share certificate? You authorized a transaction to XYZ ltd but the transaction was taken by a third party that you have no knowledge of, hence the transaction was in fact unauthorized.
    Originally posted by smala01
    Surely this would be a dispute rather than fraud.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Energy, Student Money Saving, UK Armed Forces and
    Local Money Saving - Wales 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 abusive or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.


    A person who never made a mistake, never tried anything new.
    • dj1471
    • By dj1471 17th Oct 17, 8:41 AM
    • 874 Posts
    • 575 Thanks
    dj1471
    Isn't it a better approach to argue that this was a fraudulent transaction,
    Originally posted by smala01
    No. The OP clearly authorised the transaction and received what they paid for.
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

50Posts Today

3,537Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin