Section 75 refunds - article discussion

[Deleted User]

Gemmzie wrote: »

I have faulty bed. Black Horse (who I financed the bed through) have said that I need to get an independent report completed and send it to them and then they'll decide whether it's reasonable to refund it.
The Furniture Ombudsman is quoting £350 + VAT for a check - do I have to pay this?

S75 entitles you to a refund for consequential losses as a result of your claim, so you can claim this back. Although I would think it sensible to get Black Horse to acknowledge this in writing, as a backup. It shouldn't be much of a problem, after all its the law!

However £350 + VAT is an extortionate amount to inspect a bed?!?!?!?! Are Black Horse insisting that you use that company? If I were you i'd probs find a local bed expert or something.

Black Horse will most likely refuse your claim, but thats whats the ombudsman's for Make sure your case is clear cut and simple to understand.

gd luck!

[Deleted User]

cagzy wrote: »

Just what I thought, but wanted to make sure and be able to show my friend proof. Thanks.

Unless your within the distance selling timeframe (7 days from order date) if that applies to you then you've got no chance. There has been no breach of contract by the company.

However I would suggest giving your friend the bill for your loses. A little silly :-p

KAZ005

Hello
I'm new and I looking for some advice about claiming under section 75. My husband took out a loan (July 2009) with Barclays arranged by Building Trade Skills Centre for £11,000 for our son to train as a plumber. Approx 2 years later BTSC went into administration and our son couldn't complete his course. We carried on paying the loan to Barclays but on checking the agreement to see how long the loan had left to run we came across something about our rights under the Consumer Act 1974. Because this agreement was drawn up between my husband, Barclays and BTSC we believe Barclays to be jointly liable but... when we complained to Barclays they say that because my husband took out the loan and not our son they are not responsible..Is this right? Does anyone know if this is right?

Optimist

KAZ005 wrote: »

Hello
I'm new and I looking for some advice about claiming under section 75. My husband took out a loan (July 2009) with Barclays arranged by Building Trade Skills Centre for £11,000 for our son to train as a plumber. Approx 2 years later BTSC went into administration and our son couldn't complete his course. We carried on paying the loan to Barclays but on checking the agreement to see how long the loan had left to run we came across something about our rights under the Consumer Act 1974. Because this agreement was drawn up between my husband, Barclays and BTSC we believe Barclays to be jointly liable but... when we complained to Barclays they say that because my husband took out the loan and not our son they are not responsible..Is this right? Does anyone know if this is right?

They are correct.

The course provided no benefit to your husband. You can go through the banks complaints process and then take it to the Ombudsman but the banks decision is unlikely to be overturned given the facts as stated.

JamesBG

Hi, My mother has just had a call from MBNA who we contacted with a section 75 claim for UPVC windows, (we sent them a letter and they sent us forms to fill in on monday and then called her this evening) they have told her that as she bought the windows for me she cannot claim! is this correct?

Many Thanks

James

P.s. thought it might be worth adding that the house is a family renovation project, it was bought using my mums money, is currently in my wifes name and my parents are activly involved in the restoration of the house.

Optimist

JamesBG wrote: »

Hi, My mother has just had a call from MBNA who we contacted with a section 75 claim for UPVC windows, (we sent them a letter and they sent us forms to fill in on monday and then called her this evening) they have told her that as she bought the windows for me she cannot claim! is this correct?

Many Thanks

James

As per the answer above your question. If the person claiming under Section 75 was getting no benefit from the purchase then any claim they make is very likely to be rejected.

[Deleted User]

KAZ005 wrote: »

Hello
I'm new and I looking for some advice about claiming under section 75. My husband took out a loan (July 2009) with Barclays arranged by Building Trade Skills Centre for £11,000 for our son to train as a plumber. Approx 2 years later BTSC went into administration and our son couldn't complete his course. We carried on paying the loan to Barclays but on checking the agreement to see how long the loan had left to run we came across something about our rights under the Consumer Act 1974. Because this agreement was drawn up between my husband, Barclays and BTSC we believe Barclays to be jointly liable but... when we complained to Barclays they say that because my husband took out the loan and not our son they are not responsible..Is this right? Does anyone know if this is right?

This is a complex one. I'd get some legal advice from a professional, but don't think that S75 will apply to you here.

JamesBG

Optimist wrote: »

As per the answer above your question. If the person claiming under Section 75 was getting no benefit from the purchase then any claim they make is very likely to be rejected.

I don't see that it is the same situation, a window benefits anyone living in a property and as my mother is often at this house the windows benefits her, also she paid for the house.

Also could someone point me to the part of section 75 which says that the cardholder must benefit because I can't find it.

Cheers

KAZ005

Thanks for the replies. I too can't find where it states in this section 75 that only the 'debtor' can benefit. When my husband rang to complain about the company going bust and the bank being 'equally liable' it was my husband who offered the information that it was our son who was doing the plumbing course, if he hadn't mentioned this the bank would be none the wiser and they would have accepted joint liability (they have admitted this). In actual fact the bank on first hearing about the company going bust even mentioned that they could possibly try and find an alternative course (at no expense to us) for our son to complete his course which led us to think that they did feel they were liable. Why on earth would they say this? Then they say they'll look into it, and 'surprisingly' now they say we have no claim against them. I'm dumbfounded, its always the banks that find these 'loopholes' never us.

Optimist

KAZ005 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I too can't find where it states in this section 75 that only the 'debtor' can benefit. When my husband rang to complain about the company going bust and the bank being 'equally liable' it was my husband who offered the information that it was our son who was doing the plumbing course, if he hadn't mentioned this the bank would be none the wiser and they would have accepted joint liability (they have admitted this). In actual fact the bank on first hearing about the company going bust even mentioned that they could possibly try and find an alternative course (at no expense to us) for our son to complete his course which led us to think that they did feel they were liable. Why on earth would they say this? Then they say they'll look into it, and 'surprisingly' now they say we have no claim against them. I'm dumbfounded, its always the banks that find these 'loopholes' never us.

It doesn't state such a thing this is a complex law and it is the standard interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act specifically para 1 of Section 75 and section 12b, and is about the chain of purchase, in that there has to be a direct link between consumer, supplier and lender for it to be applicable.

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

It doesn't hurt for you to go to the Ombudsman but I doubt you would get judgement in your favour.

You could also go to court and try to have this interpretation overturned in your favour but I would expect the credit suppliers to fight that in the higher courts as it would be extremely costly for them if it were found the chain does not apply.