Section 75 Credit, card Company refusing to help

sweallpet

I am in a dispute regarding a car we purchased via Bank of Scotland, Visa Card. The car, we can prove was misrepresented in Autotrader and that the purchase was from the garage and not a private sale as the garage owner claims. All the documentation has been sent to the Bank of Scotland.

After 3 months of correspondance with BOS, Visa and admitting that section 75 of the Consumer Act 1975, has been contravened in this case, they are still not going to do anything. Their reason is that the additional card holder bought the car and not the main card holder, (how do they know?).

Surely, both cardholders, on the same account, should have the same rights and protection, when a dispute arises from the purchase of goods. If the additional cardholder does not have these rights, then there is little advantage in opting to have an additional card or that the main card holder should make all purchases.

Is the Credit Card Company correct in imposing these restrictions or is it a technicality due to the economic climate and therefore their reluctance to pursue our situation.

I intend to write back to BOS Visa to say out that it has taken 3 months to inform us of this when they could have pointed this out when we first wrote to them. Failing an outcome should I write to the Financial Omsbudman.

Sweallpet

YorkshireBoy

See posts 4 & 6 in this recent thread...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1287219

I'm not sure on the additional cardholder issue*, but I'm sure you'll find some guidance in The Act itself and the FOS and OFT websites (both of which have very useful search facilities).


* A quick google has thrown up this (5 year old) article...

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/if-youre-sold-a-dud-then-plastic-will-protect-you-596325.html

Scroll down to the very last paragraph and start your research from there.

moonrakerz

The use of an additional card is a "grey area". The banks seem to want it both ways here; they want people to have and use these cards but are "unwilling" to accept
Sect 75 claims from these people.

It has been suggested that if the person making the claim is an additional cardholder, it needs to be a joint claim with the person who signed the agreement for the credit card (the principal cardholder), otherwise the credit card company may (can ?) reject the claim.

Try that first, failing that, the County Court.

TinMan_3

Unfortunately the Ombudsman's website isn't encouraging in this case (see example 2):

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/62/62-consumer-credit.htm

The argument here is that because you yourself are not the person with the credit card agreement (and hence responsible for settling the credit card bill), then the person suffering a loss isn't you, and hence the merchant-creditor-debtor relationship is not intact. A small point of law, and fantastically unfair on the unsuspecting additional cardholder but it seems one with legal precedent.

Maybe if you can prove that the payments have been taken out of a joint account forever and a day and/or if you had a joint account and applied for a joint card but they set you up as main/additional without advising you of the implications you might swing it with the ombudsman but....

I reckon your best bet is for the main cardholder to take out a County Court summons against the garage, hope they don't contest it so you get judgement by default, and then try to sue BOS for enforcement of the CCJ by the cardholder if the dealer tries to liquidate (which they often do in these situations). Otherwise, S75 may not really help.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings; good luck.