Consumer Credit Act 1974

fluffnutter

Hypothetical wrote: »

The course was bought as a gift.

I have asked HSBC to supply details of their complaints procedure.

Thanks.

I think that's the important factor, Hypo. HSBC are trying to set a strange precedent if they're effectively arguing that gifts are exempt.

Hypothetical_2

Thanks, guys. Excellent replies as always.

fluffnutter

Let us know how you get on. It's an interesting one, for sure.

Hypothetical_2

fluffnutter wrote: »

Let us know how you get on. It's an interesting one, for sure.

Be sure I will!

I'll take great pleasure in giving HSBC the publicity they so richly deserve!

Annisele

I don't think that HSBC are arguing that gifts are exempt. I think that their argument is that the course was purchased in the name of OP's son, and therefore the contract for the course was between OP's son and the course provider.

OP, do you still have any of the paperwork from the course provider? I think that if you could come up with something that showed that the contract was between your wife and the course provider, HSBC might well fall over.

When did your son get involved with all of this? Your wife couldn't have bound your son to a contract, so if she arranged the course, paid for the course, and then gave it to your son you might be OK. OTOH if there's anything to show that your wife transferred the contract to your son - with your son's agreement - you might be a bit stuffed.

FOS publishes some guidance on section 75 here. I don't think that any of it specifically applies to your situation, but it does show what you have to prove to get HSBC to pay out.

RadoJo

I agree with Annisele (for the second time in as many minutes) that they probably consider the contract with the driving instructor training provider was with your son, not your wife, which presumably is why they are refusing it - they are now one step removed from the process.

gnaril

Your bank are 100% correct.

For section 75 to apply the cardholder themselves has to be involved in the breach of contract.

As such the cardholder is unaffected, the breach is correctly between the son and the merchant.

Btw the whole "gift" is a kop out. I deal with Section 75 claims and they should reconsider their position as its a so called gift. FOS will rule in the customers favour regardless and the OP will get their money back and the bank will get a nice little charge for it going to them likely.

Your banks interpritation of the Act is valid, the gift angle is what sometimes crops up.

Some of the peoples posts on here are way off the mark.

OP take it via their complaints team then onto FOS, your onto a winner, just maintain your "gift" angle.

All the best

Hypothetical_2

Thanks for the further contributions.

I read with interest gnaril's post...and read it again and again. Sorry for being a bit numb but it seems to contradict itself.

I'd really appreciate a second interpretation.

Techhead_2

I think it seems contradictory to you, because you are not distinguishing between a gift and someone paying for something that someone else has ordered.

Hypothetical_2

It's difficult for me to view the events in more ways than one. It is a fact that the driving instructor course was bought by my wife as a gift for our son. There is no alternative scenario. My son didn't 'order' the course but clearly it had to be in his name for it was he who would receive the training.

I'm now awaiting details of HSBC's complaints procedure. Will certainly post back with progress reports!!

Thanks so far.