Egg Visa Card

Paul_Herring

benf90 wrote: »

That doesn't say they aren't covered though does it?

It's says to me they aren't covered by Section 75. Otherwise they would have given me an immediate response saying 'Yes, you're covered under section 75.'

Egg may be willing to voluntarily cover you under other circumstances such as 'depends on what you are claiming for and why,' (from the letter,) but you are most certainly not covered under Section 75 when you use a card with a positive balance.

Milarky

You say...

Paul_Herring wrote: »

It's says to me they aren't covered by Section 75. Otherwise they would have given me an immediate response saying 'Yes, you're covered under section 75.'

Egg Says...

So I am sorry to inform you but I am unable to provide you with an exact answer to your question. They have suggested that you could take legal advice if you wish to obtain an exact answer.

That's not an answer to me! It's a straightforward "I don't understand the question" evasion. Just look at the cut and pasting of inappropriate verbiage. They couldn't even say that they didn't know in plain English.

However, I've looked again at Section 75 and 75(1) might appear, on first reading, to support the 'not covered by positive balance theory' where it says:

(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.

"a transaction" must be "financed" by the agreement in order for Section 75 to apply at all. The first thought about "financed" was: 'paid for with another's money - a loan'. However "financed also applies to the means of purchase - the credit card (assuming it has a positive balance) As far as Egg Money is concerned they show that they regard that as a 'purchase' transaction because they award cashback for it, regardless of the balance on the account. Thus they have indeed 'financed' the transaction - because they allowed you to purchase the item by releasing the value to the retailer. This act of releasing value looks mightily like 'financed' to me...

(I'm sure there is a definitive answer.. somewhere...)

Paul_Herring

You bolded the wrong bit...

(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section

If your card's in credit, you aren't (wont' be) a debtor to your CC card, and your CC card isn't a creditor to you. Thus the whole paragraph doesn't apply because it doesn't apply to the owner of the CC.