PIP Implants, Can I Claim Back On My Credit Card?

NFH

2sides2everystory wrote: »

But chattychappy, whilst not making any judgement on it, earlier in the thread was quite rightly alluding to 3 year personal injury limitations commencing upon discovery. Have you considered that NFH ?

Yes, I was referring to chattychappy's mention of tort. Until there has been an actual injury suffered, Section 11 would not apply, of which Subsection 4 does state:

(4)Except where subsection (5) below applies, the period applicable is three years from—
(a)the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
(b)the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured.

However, I wonder whether Section 14A could apply in this case? This similarly allows three years:

Special time limit for negligence actions where facts relevant to cause of action are not known at date of accrual.(1)This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, other than one to which section 11 of this Act applies, where the starting date for reckoning the period of limitation under subsection (4)(b) below falls after the date on which the cause of action accrued.
(2)Section 2 of this Act shall not apply to an action to which this section applies.
(3)An action to which this section applies shall not be brought after the expiration of the period applicable in accordance with subsection (4) below.
(4)That period is either—
(a)six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
(b)three years from the starting date as defined by subsection (5) below, if that period expires later than the period mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
(5)For the purposes of this section, the starting date for reckoning the period of limitation under subsection (4)(b) above is the earliest date on which the plaintiff or any person in whom the cause of action was vested before him first had both the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage and a right to bring such an action.
(6)In subsection (5) above “the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage” means knowledge both—
(a)of the material facts about the damage in respect of which damages are claimed; and
(b)of the other facts relevant to the current action mentioned in subsection (8) below.

2sides2everystory

Agreed that's interesting, NFH. And since 14A seems to have come about as a result of imlementation of the EU Product Liability Directive (which broadly enables an injured party to sue the deepest purse does it not?) how too might the complimentary Section 11A - Actions in respect of defective products, apply with it's special 10 year limitation combined with 3 years from discovery for the personal injury aspect?

custardy

caro100 wrote: »

Thanks for all replies. There are a lot of angry and some hysterical women out there at the moment and I can understand why.

Myself, I am trying to look at all options and I personally feel that the NHS should not have to pay to put this situation right. If I am able to get help from my credit card provider this will be my 1st option.

I will make enquiries. Thanks again

well it is a day ending in Y




seriously though.
the first port of call is surtely approaching the clinic who performed the surgery and asking their course of action.

NFH

custardy wrote: »

seriously though.
the first port of call is surtely approaching the clinic who performed the surgery and asking their course of action.

True. The clinics are liable for supplying the goods under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, of which Section 18(3)(a) draws relevance to the "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied". Section 75 would be relevant only if the clinic doesn't cooperate or has since gone out of business.

Begood2me

Username Dvnr posted this, dont know if you could contact them?
I need help. My claim under section 75 has been refused. Briefly explaining a long and complicated story, 2 years ago I purchased breast implants for my wife from a clinic called Surgicare in Manchester. These implants ruptured about a year later and it turned out they were manufactured by a company called PIP in France, these implants have recently been the subject of a product recall in France as the manufacturer used an unapproved and untested gel to fil them. I went back to the clinic stating that under the sale of goods and services act they were responsible for the cost of any surgery to rectify the problems. The clinic refused to carry out further surgery unless I paid a further £1995 hospital fees. I ended up paying this money under protest to enable the surgery to go ahead, with a view to claiming it back at a later date. Soon after the company went into receivership. The assets of the company were bought but not the debts and the new owners continue to trade as Surgicare. I approached Barclaycard as I paid for the implants on my Barclaycard. Barclaycard agreed to pay £1995 as full and final settlement, I informed them that I wished to make a further claim for consequential losses as my wife has had to undergo several further surgeries to rectify issues cause by the faulty goods. Barclaycard refused stating they did not believe there had been a breach of contract by Surgicare despite the goods being miss described and unfit for purpose. I referred the case to the Financial Ombudsman who have stated that as I paid for the goods for my wife I can not make a section 75 claim. The office of fair trading disagree. I am now stuck at an impass as a solicitor I have spoken to agrees with the ombudsman and will not take on the case. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. PIP have also gone into administration.

daveboy

I've not read every post because it's not going to change my view.

There is nothing medical whatsoever in this matter. The word you are looking for is "cosmetic".

In my view it has caught out a lot of "fikkle" women who should have accepted what nature gave them. If they happened to be given small ones by nature then so be it - for me it serves the women right.

My money is also on the majority that have these implants probably also waste a fortune on make-up. The sorts of people that keep the likes of Boots in business.

I'm actually enjoying witnessing an own goal by these women who now wish they'd done nothing. Well done ladies. :T

jonnyd281

daveboy wrote: »

I've not read every post because it's not going to change my view.

There is nothing medical whatsoever in this matter. The word you are looking for is "cosmetic".

..... :T

Was there really a need for the whole of this post?

Begood2me

Daveboy. I don't think that is really fair. I had mine done as reconstruction. Mine are not PIP's but I didnt even know that until I got hold of the hospital and asked them. Didnt stop me being worried over the Christmas period. Its how some of these women felt to have to resort to this sort of thing in the first place. They dont deserve to have these " ticking timebombs" ( Newspapers words not mine! ) in their bodies.

custardy

Begood2me wrote: »

Dont think that is really fair. I had mine done as reconstruction. Mine are not PIP's but I didnt even know that until I got hold of the hospital and asked them. Didnt stop me being worried over the Christmas period. Its how some of these women felt to have to resort to this sort of thing in the first place. They dont deserve to have these " ticking timebombs" ( Newspapers words not mine! ) in their bodies.

well I don't really see reconstruction as cosmetic
more putting you back together,IYKWIM
whilst I don't think the NHS should foot the bill for everyone.
I also don't think its fair for people to have to shell out £000s after recieving what is essentially shoddy goods.
It might not help in this case but perhaps its time for the cosmetic surgery industry to have independant insurance to cover this type of scenario?

Begood2me

True they were putting me back together, but there is some vanity in it dont you think? If i was a stronger woman I maybe would have said im fine as I am, but unfortunatly I am not that strong and didnt feel " normal." And I guess that's how some of these ladies feel? I dont know, my circumstances were different, but in the way we are all the same. All boils down to what we see in the mirror...