Section 75 - HSBC deny liability

Padd_2

gt94sss2 wrote: »

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.

I was thinking the legal claim could be against either one of them if jointly and severally? If it comes to it I had planned to lodge the small claim against BA as they are the party whose actions caused the damage. Hoping to avoid the legal claim though on the basis that I think I've provided HSBC with enough evidence that BA is guilty of misrepresentation - if they will just accept this falls under Section 75. I reckon they believe there's a case which is why they've tried to avoid the liability with this argument about debtor/creditor/supplier but still written to BA to try and help me.

dzug1

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

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!

.

Not any gift no - most you can give back, and let the donor sort it out - this one you can't

Martin's guide to section 75 does hint that there may be problems if the user of the service is not the purchaser (his example is group bookings).

I haven't read section 75 (and have no intention of doing so, not right now anyway) but I'd hazard a guess that that it's what it doesn't say that is the problem - ie this particular situation is neither included nor excluded from its scope.

What's needed is a test case. OP may be that lucky person.

gt94sss2

Padd wrote: »

I was thinking the legal claim could be against either one of them if jointly and severally? If it comes to it I had planned to lodge the small claim against BA as they are the party whose actions caused the damage. Hoping to avoid the legal claim though on the basis that I think I've provided HSBC with enough evidence that BA is guilty of misrepresentation - if they will just accept this falls under Section 75.

You could talk action against BA by itself - I don't think action against a credit card issuer by themselves would be successful as the courts would want to know why the retailer of the goods/services was not included as well.

I also don't think you will find HSBC or any other card issuer willing to decide by themselves that a company had been 'guilty of misrepresentation'..

Regards
Sunil

jonesMUFCforever

Why won't OP tell us the terms of buying the bloody ticket!!!!!!!

Padd_2

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Why won't OP tell us the terms of buying the bloody ticket!!!!!!!

I'm really not trying to be difficult and it's not some deep dark secret! If I've upset you I apologise as I really appreciate yours and others help.

In answer to your question - the only reason I was reluctant to go into a lot of detail on that area is I thought this thread would then become all about whether or not I have good grounds for misrepresentation (as it has done a bit anyway), which isn't my reason for posting. I tried to give enough background so I could get some views on whether HSBC's argument about the debtor/creditor/supplier agreement was correct. If you and others thinks it's unreasonable for me to limit my question just to this area and want to hear the rest I will provide all the background.

Padd_2

Hi

Just to say thanks for the useful discussion on this thread and to let you know this has come to a successful conclusion.

I wrote to HSBC explaining why I thought the CCA did still apply in my circumstances. They replied a couple of weeks later agreeing that it applies and refunding me the full amount of the replacement ticket which was nearly 500 pounds.

Cheers

cooltt

This whole thread is a total farce!

jonesMUFCforever is exactly right, it's got nothing to do with if you have a case with HSBC or not. The OP says that they were sold the wrong ticket by BA and they now want HSBC to fight their corner HOWEVER the fact still remains.....
Did the OP buy the correct ticket or not? Without this information there is no case against anyone!!
and how do you find that out? by reading the terms and conditions of that ticket at the time of purchase. So unless you have screen shots of all the details you have a very weak case against BA it's just your word against theirs.

You can't just make up a claim against a card issuer without proving the basis of that claim in the first place.The the onus for proving the claim is on YOU not the card issuer. The stance HSBC have taken is the same as any company would take, they're not lawyers their a bank.

Padd_2

cooltt wrote: »

This whole thread is a total farce!

jonesMUCforever is exactly right, it's got nothing to do with if you have a case with HSBC or not. The OP says that they were sold the wrong ticket by BA and they now want HSBC to fight their corner HOWEVER the fact still remains.....
Did the OP buy the correct ticket or not? Without this information there is no case against anyone!!
and how do you find that out? by reading the terms and conditions of that ticket at the time of purchase. So unless you have screen shots of all the details you have a very weak case against BA it's just your word against theirs.

You can't just make up a claim against a card issuer without proving the basis of that claim in the first place.The the onus for proving the claim is on YOU not the card issuer. The stance HSBC have taken is the same as any company would take, they're not lawyers their a bank.

What a strange post.

As I said before, I knew I had a good case that BA had misrepresented the ticket they sold me - that's why I didn't ask for advice on this aspect and why HSBC have now paid up. Others seem to have understood my posts, but for your benefit - when I first wrote to HSBC I submitted all the evidence of BA's misrepresentation. They didn't take issue with that, but they said they weren't liable in the first place under the CCA because I wasn't the traveler, hence my original post for advice on that point.

You may think the thread is a "farce" but it helped me argue that my situation was caught by the CCA (hence my post to say thanks) and it helped clarify a general point that even where the service/good is delivered to another person who is not the card holder the banks are still caught by the CCA. I thought this kind of discussion and help was the purpose of this site.

jonesMUFCforever

You still have not said what type of ticket you bought though.

Padd_2

It was a World Traveler ticket that I maintain was changeable (for a fee and fare surplus, i.e. not fully flexible)