Property Professionals: Can I reclaim training costs via Section 75?

lovelydai

The question for me is whether the training is worth pursuing. I believe that the implied offer or work through its panel- even though non was promised, the discount on the contract implies an offer - together with the "discount" (somehow I doubt anybody refused that offer) for joining their panel constitutes misselling.

Could the directors say that with the knowledge of the Home Inspection market they could reasonably be expected to hold, that there would be enough work for each other trainees to meet our minimum commitment to them.

By no means do I think that this is an open and shut case. I paid a £100 deposit through my business account credit card. I could technically request the entire cost of the course through them. Believe me, the way they have treated me over this, nothing would give me greater pleasure.

I really don't want to go to court on this without a cast iron argument. I've had my training, and had I not been taken ill would probably have qualified by now. My only issue is that the trainers themselves have admitted that there is no current commercial reason for undertaking this training, and that there will be no market opportunities in the foreseeable future, in clear contradiction of what was said to us at our recruitment meetings and by our trainers when the issue was raised repeatedly on the course.

Barclays may well be able to find training providers. But in my opinion they acted in partnership with a body which missold us a product.

Cheezed_off_Chris

I totally agree with lovelydai. It was a hard sell using 'ideal' figures insted of 'real world' ones otherwise at the price we were charged we would have been fools to sign up (maybe we were) If they had just been honest with us then we could've worked it out for ourselves. Re: Barclays PF there is a link further up in this thread to consumer direct website with template letters to ask credit/ loan companies for refunds due to missold products or services. They should've been more responsible with their lending in my opinion and checked out the company they were partnered up with.

lovelydai

thanks Chris, you sent me that via the Goog Group.

Claire77

Can anyone help with this question?

I paid Property Professional 10,235 for their full training course with my partners (Common Law) credit card.

I've started the process of claiming from the credit card under section 75. I had keep the original visa slip, got all the receipts and contract ect.

I sent all these off to the CC company and they wrote back stating that I (my partner) couldn,t claim, and they weren't liable because the contract was between me and PP and NOT the card holder (my partner) and Property professionals.

Does anyone have a view on this? I ythink they are just trying to wriggle out of it!!

Claire

dazza.mk

Claire77 wrote: »

Can anyone help with this question?

I paid Property Professional 10,235 for their full training course with my partners (Common Law) credit card.

I've started the process of claiming from the credit card under section 75. I had keep the original visa slip, got all the receipts and contract ect.

I sent all these off to the CC company and they wrote back stating that I (my partner) couldn,t claim, and they weren't liable because the contract was between me and PP and NOT the card holder (my partner) and Property professionals.

Does anyone have a view on this? I ythink they are just trying to wriggle out of it!!

Claire

Unfortunately it isn't what you want to hear but that is a known 'loophole' within Section 75

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1561177

Claire77

Thanks for your reply. I've had a VERY quick look at the link. Not much time because I'm trying to work! However, I'm not convinced that it's a clear cut issue.

For instance, I could argue that the course was booked by my partner to benefit us both, and our kids, because the qualifications (and promise of 2 years work) would provide regular work and financial stability.

Thats my initial argument anyway!

Cheezed_off_Chris

If your partner bought a defective product or goods that were mis sold, surely your partner would have a right to claim that back, regardless of whether or not he had bought them as a gift. The training could maybe be called a gift, It was certainly a PP+ product.

There is a new group on facebook called property professional in administration, Ask to join. And tell others, it is full of others more knowledgeable than me.

joasph

Thanks for the tip about the facebook group I will ask to join as I have a question regarding payment to Property Professionals for traning using a VISA debit card and I would like to know if the VISA chargeback scheme can be used to make a claim. Also as some of the training was received by me can I only make a claim for a partial refund

meer53

To claim under section 75, there has to be a debtor/creditor relationship, if you pay for services and those services are for someone else, there is no relationship, hence no claim. Your CC issuer is correct to say they can't help you in this case.

Cheezed_off_Chris

meer53 wrote: »

To claim under section 75, there has to be a debtor/creditor relationship, if you pay for services and those services are for someone else, there is no relationship, hence no claim. Your CC issuer is correct to say they can't help you in this case.

Is that English law? Not just American?