Section 75 claim stuffed by staff discount?

boatingbrock

I have attempted to obtain a refund for some furniture using Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The bank has stated that my claim cannot be considered because although the furniture was purchased on my credit card, the original invoice is in the name of my nephew.

(The reason for this is that he works for the department store I purchased the furniture from, and he was ordering the goods using his staff discount card. This is quite legitimate and no objection was raised by the store. It is only the bank that is saying this invalidates my claim under 'Section 75').

Has anyone had a similar experience? Is the bank 'trying it on', or do they have a valid case? My view is that I paid for the goods, used my card, I have the credit card receipt and the item is on my statement.

Oopsadaisy

Not sure on this one...have you tried google?????

Equaliser123

The bank are technically correct as the contract appears to be with your nephew rather than you.

There are ways around this. You should say that your nephew was acting as your agent in the transaction assuming, of course, that the furniture is now yours.

bubblegumcola

I would have thought if you paid for the items then it should be straightforward to get a refund on faulty goods bought by yourself even with the discount. Have you sought any legal advice down at Citizens Advice or your local trading standards?

I'm worried about your nephew getting into trouble for letting you use his staff discount for getting your furniture. Many companies strictly forbid anyone other than who you live with getting the discount. So if he was married his wife could use the discount or if he lived with his parents one of them could use the discount. Or is the company he works for not that stringent in enforcing who he gives discount to? I'd get the sack for doing that where I work.

Equaliser123

bubblegumcola wrote: »

I would have thought if you paid for the items then it should be straightforward to get a refund on faulty goods bought by yourself even with the discount. Have you sought any legal advice down at Citizens Advice or your local trading standards?

.

The point is, the OP was not the contracting party.

dzug1

What are the department store saying about this? Have they rejected the claim and why?

If they have validly rejected it then section 75 won't help.

Equaliser123

dzug1 wrote: »

What are the department store saying about this? Have they rejected the claim and why?

If they have validly rejected it then section 75 won't help.

I suspect the OP doesn't want to drag the nephew through the embarassment of a dispute with the store.

bingo_bango

The issue here is whether or not OP is not the contracting party. For a S.75 claim to work, it has to be a breach of a representation made during negotiations (S.56 of the CCA). As OP wasn't a party to the negotiations (he had an agent instead) then the claim would likely fail. That said, there needs to be a debtor-creditor-supplier position, and that appears to be in place.

Further, as OP states that the trader raised no objection to the discount, then I would argue that the nephew was acting as an employee of the trader, not an agent of the buyer. In that case, the claim should be allowed to proceed.

I suggest OP asks the card company for a full written explanation of the reasons behind their decision to deny the claim under S.75, as he will need this to form the basis of his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I suspect they will be more inclined to deal with his claim once they have 'reviewed' the situation.

Equaliser123

bingo_bango wrote: »

The issue here is that OP is not the contracting party.

If nephew was OP's agent, then OP will be the contracting party.

bingo_bango

Apologies, you are of course correct as I myself explained in my second paragraph - amended.