Section 75 question

greentreefrog

Hello all.

Last year I employed a contractor to carry out some tiling work at my house. The work was not completed to a satisfactory level so I retained part of the payment and requested that the contractor return and put right his errors. After many letters and emails backwards and forwards, I was regrettably forced to take legal action, however the contractor subsequently went into liquidation. As I now have no chance of recouping any money from the company in question, I plan to claim against my credit card company under Section 75.

However, the sums involved are not insubstantial, and I am aware that there is a limit of £30000 for a claim. My question is this - if my claim comes to more than £30k, will the cc company simply refuse the claim, or might they pay out the £30k and not the remainder? Otherwise would it be more prudent for me to claim an amount within the limits knowing that it would be more likely to succeed?

Thanks in advance.

JD

ILW

30 grand for tiling, bloody hell.

lisyloo

If you are going to claim, don't you need to get a quote first?
Are you really saying it will cost more than £30K to rectify the errors?

Why one each did you pay up front with such a large amount wrong?

dazza.mk

The cash price of the goods or services must be under £30,000

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/62/62-consumer-credit.htm

By the above reducing the claim to £29,999 won't work as the cash price for the services would be £30,000+ and with a figure that high you can guarantee that the credit card company isn't going to pay the claim if they can prove they aren't liable.

greentreefrog

The original cash price was under £30,000. I intend to claim for the costs of putting right the faulty work (for which I have a quote), which in this case involves ripping up and relaying 35m2 of ceramic floor tiles, and about 100m2 of natural stone - plus relaying the screeds underneath.

Would I be better off simply claiming the original costs? Or that plus the cost of the materials, but not the work - that way the claim would come in under £30,000.

JD

[Deleted User]

If you were planning on claiming of the original costs, plus the costs of rectifying the work (which includes laying the tiling correctly), doesn't this mean you're aiming to get the work done for free as a whole?

That's not what section 75 is set up to do. It is there to effectively put you back in a zero position - ie you didn't get the good/services so you don't pay for them, not to provide the good/services at no cost.

greentreefrog

Not exactly, as the original cost of the materials was not included in the original payment - the claim against the tiling company was for the cost of the work only, as I supplied the materials. However you have made things clearer to me now, as I see that I cannot claim the costs of the work involved in rectifying the work, only the materials. All I am trying to do is to avoid paying for everything twice!

dazza.mk

I don't think that's quite correct. Ignore the costs you've originally paid out, you should be claiming for the costs of all remedial work so that at the end of the day you have a nicely tiled area that has cost you £xx as per the original contract.

If additional work and materials are needed due to remedial work on the original (botched) work they should be in scope.