Section 75 - HSBC deny liability

Padd_2

Hi

I would be really grateful for any views on this:

I had a dispute with BA where I believe they are guilty of misrepresentation in that they led me to believe when I bought a ticket that it was changeable (for a fee), but then when I tried to change the date they told me it was non-changeable, meaning I had to buy a new single ticket. This dispute is a long story so I won't go into it too much as my question is only in relation to HSBC, who provide the credit card I paid for it with.

Having received no joy with BA in asking them to change the flight and subsequently to pay for the cost of the replacement single ticket, I wrote to HSBC under Section 75 of the CCA 1974. Their response seems a bit odd. They say they have written to BA to ask them to reconsider their position (implying they believe I have a case) but that HSBC doesn't accept liability.

HSBC accepts that I am the debtor and they are the creditor, but they say because I bought the flight for my girlfriend (who doesn't have an HSBC credit card) there is no debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement.

I have read the Act and my understanding is that it is a Section 12 debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement since per the definition in Section 11(1)(a) the agreement was to finance a transaction between the debtor (me) and a person/supplier (BA) other than the creditor (HSBC). I can't find any requirement that the goods/services have to be directly supplied to me by the person/supplier, only that I as the debtor paid for them (it was effectively a gift to her). You could maybe argue anyway that they were supplying a service in flying her to see me! Surely if their argument is correct Section 75 wouldn't protect anyone buying gifts unless the receiver is also a credit card holder, and I can't find any reference to gifts being excluded.

Thanks in advance for any help/thoughts.

gt94sss2

Padd wrote: »

I had a dispute with BA where I believe they are guilty of misrepresentation in that they led me to believe when I bought a ticket that it was changeable (for a fee), but then when I tried to change the date they told me it was non-changeable, meaning I had to buy a new single ticket.

Sounds as if your dispute is really with BA - do you have any evidence that you thought were booking a flexible ticket?

Having received no joy with BA in asking them to change the flight and subsequently to pay for the cost of the replacement single ticket, I wrote to HSBC under Section 75 of the CCA 1974. Their response seems a bit odd. They say they have written to BA to ask them to reconsider their position (implying they believe I have a case) but that HSBC doesn't accept liability.

I would not read into HSBC's letter - as described above - that they imply/believe you have a case..

As well as any advice received here, you may want to try asking for advice on the Consumer Rights board.

EDIT: You could also try asking http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/

Regards
Sunil

jonesMUFCforever

The case rests entirely on the terms and conditions you signed for when you purchased your ticket.
You have to prove BA are wrong can you do this?
If you can't then IMO they are right to refuse your claim although IANAL.

moonrakerz

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

The case rests entirely on the terms and conditions you signed for when you purchased your ticket.

That doesn't appear to be the case. The OP is claiming misrepresentation by BA, which certainly IS covered by Sect 75.

"An advantage of using a credit card is that, under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, customers who have a claim against a supplier for breach of contract or misrepresentation will generally have an equal claim against the card issuer."

From Financial Ombudsman's site:

opinions4u

moonrakerz wrote: »

That doesn't appear to be the case. The OP is claiming misrepresentation by BA, which certainly IS covered by Sect 75.

"An advantage of using a credit card is that, under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, customers who have a claim against a supplier for breach of contract or misrepresentation will generally have an equal claim against the card issuer."

From Financial Ombudsman's site:

To which the obvious response is "can the OP prove misrepresentation?".

If the answer is a clear "yes" then while both BA and HSBC are potentially liable, the card issuer would always expect the retailer to settle.

If the answer is vague - and the proof doesn't exist, then this could be far more difficult to progress.

jonesMUFCforever

I will place a £10 bet with anyone that wants to take it on and I will say here and now that OP has bought a non changeable ticket.

Padd_2

I believe I can show misrepresentation but it will take a long time to go into the background on this. Happy to do that if it is of interest to anyone but my reason for posting was to see if anyone knew whether HSBC have a valid argument. They say that because my girlfriend was the passenger I am not covered by Section 75 in the first place, regardless of whether there was or wasn't misrepresentation. HSBC are so far avoiding the misrepresentation point by saying they don't have a liability as there was no debtor-creditor-supplier agreement anyway.

jonesMUFCforever

I agree with you that what they are saying is a red herring.
How would they know this anyway - are HSBC saying that any gift costing more than £100 is not covered by CCA because you give it to a third party - rubbish!

Please tell us the terms and conditions of how you bought the ticket though.

Padd_2

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I will place a £10 bet with anyone that wants to take it on and I will say here and now that OP has bought a non changeable ticket.

Sorry if my first post wasn't clear - there are 2 issues: (1) was there misrepresentation and (2) can I pursue HSBC rather than me having to make a legal claim against BA (having already exhausted BA's complaints process). I've taken initial advice from a lawyer on the first point and they think I have a strong argument which is worth pursuing. But it's a low value claim of c500 pounds so they wouldn't act for me and said to first write to my credit card company. As I've already had an initial legal view on point 1 and HSBC aren't debating it (yet) I was trying to keep this thread just to the second point. HSBC's say it's outside Section 75 as my girlfriend was the passenger. My reason for posting is I can't find anything in the Act, this website or other sites as to whether this should make any difference.

gt94sss2

Padd wrote: »

Sorry if my first post wasn't clear - there are 2 issues: (1) was there misrepresentation and (2) can I pursue HSBC rather than me having to make a legal claim against BA (having already exhausted BA's complaints process

IANAL but the Consumer Credit Act uses the term ' ‘jointly and severally liable’.

As such, I believe you would need to lodge a legal claim against both BA and HSBC together - I don't think you could only pursue HSBC.

If the claim is in the region of £500, it can be dealt with by the Small Claims Court and you can lodge such cases online if you wish to do so.

I imagine you would need to convince the judge you have suffered misrepresentation. On the other hand, you don't need a lawyer to file such cases and if you win, you can usually get the legal fees back as well..

Regards
Sunil

Padd_2

[QUOTE=
How would they know this anyway - are HSBC saying that any gift costing more than £100 is not covered by CCA because you give it to a third party - rubbish!
[/QUOTE]

I think they're trying to say that because HSBC was supplying the service to my girlfriend and not me as the debtor, there is no triparty creditor/debtor/supplier agreement. .

Interestingly the Air Transport User's Council took a similar line in refusing the help me pursue BA as my girlfriend who was the passenger is not a UK national. Even though I bought the ticket and had to stump up for another one when BA wouldn't change it!