Section 75

Sparkle01_2

hi

i part paid for cosmetic surgery in 2009 on my credit card, this is now showing signs of faliure, i have proof of surgery and proof of payment but no documents for warranty and terms and conditions, which the credit card company are now asking for, i was clearly sold somthing, believing it to be somthing else, so i now have a claim under section 75. because i dont have proof of warranty and terms and conditions, could somebody please tell me if this will be a problem.

many thanks

chanz4

2 1/2 years bodys change

Sparkle01_2

hi chanz 4 bodys do change i agree but i ad breast augmentation on 17 july 2009, i paid a lot of money 4 this surgery , n the implant i recieved was of poor quality. the manufactures of the implant pip was given go ahead 2 use these devises all checks wer dne wen they was given go ahead they chanced the stuff used n they didnt av a protective coatin on them as they should av had there now showin signs of rupture . pip implant manufacturers av been closed down . ther is a lot of pip implant patients wiv ruptures . i clearly paid 4 implants believing them 2 b fill wiv somthing else n there 4 av claim under sec 75 . but as i said the cred card company want a copy of terms n conditions etc . i av proof of payment n records of implants i av , so cud any 1 tell me if not avin terms n conditions could hinder my claim thanks

Norfolk_Jim

you dont need to use text language here, you can use as many words as you need. You will find if you use text talk that some people who might have had good advice for you, wont read your post because of it. I see your a newbie - this is pretty much true for the other boards too. Remembering this and using plain English will get better responses, really, it will.

Gillybobs

I have another section 75 problem that has been to MBNA - who I have researched and appear to have a poor record of 'customer care' and the Financial Ombudsman Service, who do not appear to be independent at all.

I bought landbanking plots from two companies - which were both closed down in the public interest. Another party, dealing with HBOS, obtained a full refund plus compounded interest for his claim using a clause in the terms and conditions of the first company (Hayden James Land Acquisitions) that 'guaranteed that the company would apply for planning permission within two planning reviews' - the FOS final decision did not mention that the company no longer existed, and stated that two planning reviews had not passed.

Firstly, the whole joint liability issue is so that consumers can claim off the card companies if the retail company ceases trading, secondly, the FOS did not mention whoes planning review period they were discussing, as I asked the local planning departmental head about this...the response was that their planning reviews have NO fixed time periods...however, the company letters sent to me discuss the planning reviews as though they were the actual companies.

In either case, the FOS made a biased decision, as if the company ceased trading they partially breached a condition of their own terms. I am now trying to find a competent solicitor to deal with this, as several well known companies have got back to me with incorrect advise.

The second company, Land International Ltd, had a company investigation carried out prior to a court winding up hearing. The FOS failed to acknowledge authoritative FINDINGS - preferring to relate to them as allegations, which they were not....someone did a thorough investigation of the marketing and individual site characteristics and planning potential etc.

I now see the FOS as another quango, where people are employed with NO legal training, and if appears after my claims, that there is a highly biased system in place.

The person who did get his claim accepted supported me throughout, and believes that s.75 is there to protect consumers, but different companies and the FOS choose to interpret the laws of the land differently....so how good is our consumer law, where one person claiming uses the very same contract clause as another and two very different outcomes result????

I have been extremely stressed, and the FOS were made aware of my husbands passing on last November, maybe they feel that I will just disappear...these two transactions amount to £22k plus compound interest....I cannot give up, however my health is now suffering. Perhaps credit card companies should be more careful when they vet companies before allowing them credit card transaction facilities, as Land International and other companies seem to have a practice of using 'third party' companies (that they are directors of too).


I am currently looking for a solicitor who knows their stuff and once they get something between their teeth don@t let go!!

chattychappy

Sparkle01 wrote: »

i have proof of surgery and proof of payment but no documents for warranty and terms and conditions, which the credit card company are now asking for, i was clearly sold somthing, believing it to be somthing else, so i now have a claim under section 75. because i dont have proof of warranty and terms and conditions, could somebody please tell me if this will be a problem.

I think it is a problem, but not insurmountable. The reason is, that whatever T+Cs you have, this is only part of the story. Some terms and conditions - especially exclusion of liability clauses - are not effective in law anyway.

I don't want to get into the merits of your claim about the surgery going wrong because 1) it's private 2) I'm not a surgeon. But at some point you will need an expert opinion to look at what has happened and give an opinion as to whether there was clinical negligence/defect or not. If so, then you have a good case regardless of what the T+Cs say and whether they can be found. Section 75 makes the CC jointly liable. It doesn't put in any special procedural requirements - eg you have to produce written contracts etc. I don't blame the CC for asking though. It it easier for you to prove breach of contract if you have the contract and can refer to specific terms.

Gillybobs wrote: »

I now see the FOS as another quango, where people are employed with NO legal training, and if appears after my claims, that there is a highly biased system in place.

I don't blame you for your cynicism. I could write a book about this. The reality is, the court system is a mess. Inefficient, muddled and full of protective practices.

But rather than deal with this, the gov create "kangaroo justice". A plethora of ombudsmen and tribunals to mete out justice "on the cheap". Then, we have consumer protection legislation and the internet age. The FOS (like most such bodies) are free to "entitlement-aware" consumers who can bash off emails/letters at the first sign of trouble. It costs money to put a legally trained person into one of these places. So they used untrained people who are used to standard situations. The section 75 thing has got out of control IMHO - but nevertheless the law is the law and I doubt whether any gov will tamper with something that appears good for consumers regardless of its hidden costs.

In your case, I agree, see a solicitor. Agree a fee structure. Of course follow his advice, not mine. But mine would be not to bother with the FOS. Just issue a pre-action protocol letter and assuming no response then issue a claim form. (ie sue).

ILW

Gillybobs wrote: »

I have another section 75 problem that has been to MBNA - who I have researched and appear to have a poor record of 'customer care' and the Financial Ombudsman Service, who do not appear to be independent at all.

I bought landbanking plots from two companies - which were both closed down in the public interest. Another party, dealing with HBOS, obtained a full refund plus compounded interest for his claim using a clause in the terms and conditions of the first company (Hayden James Land Acquisitions) that 'guaranteed that the company would apply for planning permission within two planning reviews' - the FOS final decision did not mention that the company no longer existed, and stated that two planning reviews had not passed.

Firstly, the whole joint liability issue is so that consumers can claim off the card companies if the retail company ceases trading, secondly, the FOS did not mention whoes planning review period they were discussing, as I asked the local planning departmental head about this...the response was that their planning reviews have NO fixed time periods...however, the company letters sent to me discuss the planning reviews as though they were the actual companies.

In either case, the FOS made a biased decision, as if the company ceased trading they partially breached a condition of their own terms. I am now trying to find a competent solicitor to deal with this, as several well known companies have got back to me with incorrect advise.

The second company, Land International Ltd, had a company investigation carried out prior to a court winding up hearing. The FOS failed to acknowledge authoritative FINDINGS - preferring to relate to them as allegations, which they were not....someone did a thorough investigation of the marketing and individual site characteristics and planning potential etc.

I now see the FOS as another quango, where people are employed with NO legal training, and if appears after my claims, that there is a highly biased system in place.

The person who did get his claim accepted supported me throughout, and believes that s.75 is there to protect consumers, but different companies and the FOS choose to interpret the laws of the land differently....so how good is our consumer law, where one person claiming uses the very same contract clause as another and two very different outcomes result????

I have been extremely stressed, and the FOS were made aware of my husbands passing on last November, maybe they feel that I will just disappear...these two transactions amount to £22k plus compound interest....I cannot give up, however my health is now suffering. Perhaps credit card companies should be more careful when they vet companies before allowing them credit card transaction facilities, as Land International and other companies seem to have a practice of using 'third party' companies (that they are directors of too).


I am currently looking for a solicitor who knows their stuff and once they get something between their teeth don@t let go!!

S75 does not insure you against poor investment decisions in "get rich quick" schemes.

shakes1178

Hi

In November 2009 I paid a £1000 deposit on my credit card for a deposit on a timeshare (crazy I know). It was a 5 Star luxury place which stole my heart.
We received credit through Barclays Finance for the remaining amount. I then got a loan from my bank and paid of Barclays.

Since then we have been unable to get booked in and the company do not respond to emails.

Can I make a claim under S75 as the initial deposit was on my Visa credit card?

Also, I have been advised that I can get out of the time share agreement by sending all documents back and relinquishing everything (£10,000 - and we waited had a holiday out of it yet ). If the S75 claim is successful does this cancel the time share contract?

If not, can you give me any advice on what to do to get out of it, preferably getting our money back?

Thanks

Gillybobs

I am not into get rich quick schemes, I went through a period of scrimping and surviving...selling my house and downsizing...and also I had low self esteem and money in the bank. I now know that that combination, plus an estranged husband wanting to 'come back' made me do reckless things ie go to a property show. Over the past seven years I have, yet again been in survival mode, with depression and anxiety.

My main problem stems from never having a 'trust' role model as a child...it is too deep to go into on a forum...but my main fault has been gullibility and vulnerability...I also have no-one to discuss matters with. I know the value of hard work....I do resent people thinking of me in terms of greed....I am in my 50s and thought for once I should think of my retirement and future alone. I also thought at the time that if everyone else was doing it, it must ok...I had an article in the Daily Mirror two days before my husband passed on last November...I just want to let you know that I have not had it 'easy', and I have volunteered a large part of my time to a daycentre for the disadvantaged...if I were greedy I would not put others before me. Not everyone who has experienced 'investing' in this way has been greedy, most have done it thinking they were investing in their futures...not lining the pockets of greedy fraudsters.

chattychappy

Greedy or generous. Tough life or not.50s or 20s..

Don't want to sound brutal, but just don't get into that (especially not in front of a solicitor if the meter's running). Now is not the time (I know you were replying to an earlier post.)

This is a legal problem that needs to be addressed from a cold legal perspective. Keep the emotion out of it, else you will run into more trouble. Nothing to do with morals or ethics.. just weighing up risks/benefits or embarking on litigation.

Good luck!

cabbage

how is your Section 75 claim progressing OP?