s 75 consumer credit act 1974

kuepper

I have a credit card and added my daughter as an additional cardholder for our mutual convenience. My daughter used it to buy goods which were faulty. The firm has denied responsibility and I contacted cc company but they say say I cannot claim from them because they say the contract was between the firm and my daughter and they are only liable if the contract had been between me and the firm

mo786uk

that is correct i believe

look here tho

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/cca-section-75-problems/

unholyangel

Section 75 doesn't always cover additional card holders, especially if the goods in question would be of no benefit to the main card holder.

However, all is not lost. And you do still have a few options available to you.

Have you exhausted all options with the retailer directly? Are they based in the UK? What are the goods in question? What is the fault? When was the item purchased? When did the fault become apparent? Was it bought online or in store? What reply have the retailer given (other than denying responsibility, did they for example, give a reason why)? What was the value of the goods?

kuepper

The goods were stone flags which were broken when the delivery man dropped the pallet. The damage was immediately photographed and emailed to the firm Landscaping Supplies Direct in Shefffield . My daughter's in Manchester so there are logistical problems of bulk and distance in simply returning them - she still has a heap of broken stone at side of house and it will cost £115 for a skip to remove it, adding to cost of wasted money. LSD refuse to accept liability as they say it was the driver's fault and that the driver works for a separate delivery firm. The driver said he couldnt remember the delivery (surprise surprise). Only gone down cc route as last resort worried about cost of legal case and stress

Flyboy152

unholyangel wrote: »

Section 75 doesn't always cover additional card holders, especially if the goods in question would be of no benefit to the main card holder.

However, all is not lost. And you do still have a few options available to you.

Have you exhausted all options with the retailer directly? Are they based in the UK? What are the goods in question? What is the fault? When was the item purchased? When did the fault become apparent? Was it bought online or in store? What reply have the retailer given (other than denying responsibility, did they for example, give a reason why)? What was the value of the goods?

There are exceptions.

This doesn't mean that purchases made by a secondary card holder won't be covered. If the purchase is made with the primary card holder's authority - if they expressly request the purchase be made or could be implied to benefit such as the purchase of a family holiday - they should still be covered under Section 75.

Flyboy152

kuepper wrote: »

The goods were stone flags which were broken when the delivery man dropped the pallet. The damage was immediately photographed and emailed to the firm Landscaping Supplies Direct in Shefffield . My daughter's in Manchester so there are logistical problems of bulk and distance in simply returning them - she still has a heap of broken stone at side of house and it will cost £115 for a skip to remove it, adding to cost of wasted money. LSD refuse to accept liability as they say it was the driver's fault and that the driver works for a separate delivery firm. The driver said he couldnt remember the delivery (surprise surprise). Only gone down cc route as last resort worried about cost of legal case and stress

Section 75 might not cover it, but a chargeback might.

Flyboy152

kuepper wrote: »

The goods were stone flags which were broken when the delivery man dropped the pallet. The damage was immediately photographed and emailed to the firm Landscaping Supplies Direct in Shefffield . My daughter's in Manchester so there are logistical problems of bulk and distance in simply returning them - she still has a heap of broken stone at side of house and it will cost £115 for a skip to remove it, adding to cost of wasted money. LSD refuse to accept liability as they say it was the driver's fault and that the driver works for a separate delivery firm. The driver said he couldnt remember the delivery (surprise surprise). Only gone down cc route as last resort worried about cost of legal case and stress

The responsibility lies with the retailer. If the contracted the delivery person, they are liable.

bod1467

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The responsibility lies with the retailer. If the contracted the delivery person, they are liable.

Provided that the OP's daughter didn't arrange the delivery company. (Just to reiterate this point you make. Whilst unlikely, this needs confirmed).

OP - subject to the above, if retailer won't play ball (this is a clear SOGA issue - goods are faulty on receipt), then send them a Letter Before Action outlining the issue and the remedy you expect (repair, replace, refund - and you are (she is) entitled to demand a refund if wished as the goods have been rejected shortly after receipt), and give them a reasonable time frame to respond (7-14 days). Send this letter Recorded Delivery (so you have a record of it being received).

If they still won't play ball then it's Small Claims court time.

kuepper

bod1467 wrote: »

Provided that the OP's daughter didn't arrange the delivery company. (Just to reiterate this point you make. Whilst unlikely, this needs confirmed).

OP - subject to the above, if retailer won't play ball (this is a clear SOGA issue - goods are faulty on receipt), then send them a Letter Before Action outlining the issue and the remedy you expect (repair, replace, refund - and you are (she is) entitled to demand a refund if wished as the goods have been rejected shortly after receipt), and give them a reasonable time frame to respond (7-14 days). Send this letter Recorded Delivery (so you have a record of it being received).

If they still won't play ball then it's Small Claims court time.

We've done all those things and I tried cc as last resort to avoid court as there's no guarantee we'd win and and could end up paying their legal costs to add to the nearly £1000 we've lost already and I know from getting a quote from solicitor recently myself they charge £217 per hour plus vat so we could end up ruined

unholyangel

Flyboy152 wrote: »

There are exceptions.

Duh! Why else do you think I said

unholyangel wrote: »

Section 75 doesn't always cover additional card holders, especially if the goods in question would be of no benefit to the main card holder.

I understand you're probably trying to help the op, but I'd appreciate if you actually read my posts before trying to pick faults in them that arent there.

unholyangel

kuepper wrote: »

We've done all those things and I tried cc as last resort to avoid court as there's no guarantee we'd win and and could end up paying their legal costs to add to the nearly £1000 we've lost already and I know from getting a quote from solicitor recently myself they charge £217 per hour plus vat so we could end up ruined

Ok, did you specifically head the letter "Letter Before Action"?

If what has been said above (that the retailer contracted the delivery company and not your daughter), then as Flyboy says, it is the responsibility of the retailer.

There are options outside of paying a solicitor and for small claims courts......a solicitor is not needed as it is a relatively straight forward process. I also believe that as the consumer, you can request the hearing be held local to you. The fees involved in small claims is relatively small (around £55-60 i believe) and would also enable you to claim out of pocket expenses. However, you must try to mitigate your loss. So a few quotes for skips would be in order.

If you are really wanting to avoid court action completely, you could try contacting Trading Standards, Consumer Direct and Citizens Advice to see if they can offer any advice or assistance.

Why do you think you might lose a small claims? It goes on the balance of probabilities. You do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal courts.