s 75 consumer credit act 1974

Flyboy152

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

General legal costs are rarely awarded to the winner in a small claims court. There are exceptions, but it is highly unlikely in this case. It is one of the purposes why the small claims court exists.

kuepper

I have exhausted all these options - cons advice, trading standards, cab - and they say I can't do anything except try cc and if that fails the small claims court. LSD are v intransigent and bullish and I dont think theyd accept decision even if small claims court found in our favour in which case either I'd have to go back to court to get enforcement or they'd appeal and theyd have lawyer ie LSD can buy justice. One law for the rich another for the poor.

unholyangel

kuepper wrote: »

I have exhausted all these options - cons advice, trading standards, cab - and they say I can't do anything except try cc and if that fails the small claims court. LSD are v intransigent and bullish and I dont think theyd accept decision even if small claims court found in our favour in which case either I'd have to go back to court to get enforcement or they'd appeal and theyd have lawyer ie LSD can buy justice. One law for the rich another for the poor.

If you dont mind me asking, how much would your claim be for? The costs involved with small claims may be worth the risk. What makes you think they would contract a lawyer?

Many people have taken on large/wealthy companies and won. Don't be intimidated by them.

Are there any solicitors in your area that will offer a free 30 min consultation? Or have you already exhausted that route too?

Flyboy152

kuepper wrote: »

I have exhausted all these options - cons advice, trading standards, cab - and they say I can't do anything except try cc and if that fails the small claims court. LSD are v intransigent and bullish and I dont think theyd accept decision even if small claims court found in our favour in which case either I'd have to go back to court to get enforcement or they'd appeal and theyd have lawyer ie LSD can buy justice. One law for the rich another for the poor.

I always thought that small claims was arbitrary, i.e. no appeal; decision is final. If they do not comply with the judgement, then you instruct bailiffs to recover. Their credit is shot and they won't get borrow any nore money from the bank.

gnaril

With all due respect, the crap 'support' posted on this site by good old Martin Lewis is beyond worthless regarding Section 75.

I can see someone copied a section of it above in the post.

In relation to the additional cardholder, tecnically speaking the banks only obligation and agreement is with the maincardholder so I see the banks point with the refusal. Seems a bit harsh as the way we work we still deal with Section 75 claims for any additional cardholder. The only exception if it is a true 3rd party and not on the account you get into muddied waters.

To be honest from the very limited post from the OP. A chargeback should really be attempted RC 4853 Not as described- Defective Goods.

This covers goods recieved that are broken, damaged, not suitable for the purpose intended. I am assum,ing the goods were signed for as being damaged on delivery. Whatever issues the actual company has with the courier/delivery company that has nothing to do with you as a customer. You paid for something and recieved it broken. They need to replace or refund and take it up with the couries directly.

Anyways all the best OP hope you get something sorted.

kuepper

gnaril wrote: »

With all due respect, the crap 'support' posted on this site by good old Martin Lewis is beyond worthless regarding Section 75.

I can see someone copied a section of it above in the post.

In relation to the additional cardholder, tecnically speaking the banks only obligation and agreement is with the maincardholder so I see the banks point with the refusal. Seems a bit harsh as the way we work we still deal with Section 75 claims for any additional cardholder. The only exception if it is a true 3rd party and not on the account you get into muddied waters.

To be honest from the very limited post from the OP. A chargeback should really be attempted RC 4853 Not as described- Defective Goods.

This covers goods recieved that are broken, damaged, not suitable for the purpose intended. I am assum,ing the goods were signed for as being damaged on delivery. Whatever issues the actual company has with the courier/delivery company that has nothing to do with you as a customer. You paid for something and recieved it broken. They need to replace or refund and take it up with the couries directly.

Anyways all the best OP hope you get something sorted.

The goods could not be signed for as being damaged because although there were breaking noises when he dropped one of the pallets the delivery driver didnt wait to find out and drove off before the pallets could be unpacked (in a way this was fair enough as they took a couple of hours to unpack and check). It could not be confirmed the goods were damaged until the pallets were unpacked later. LSD were phoned immediately as damage discovered and they asked for photos which were emailed.

LSD may need to do these things but they just aren't interested they are just cowboys.

what do you mean by a chargeback being attempted?

Flyboy152

A chargeback to your credit card is an alternative refund mechanism to section a seventy-five claim. It generally covers purchases that are not covered by s75 of the CCA, but has a different list of criteria for what it covers. It was originally designed for debit card transactions as these are not covered by s75, but most card card issuers provide a chargeback system as well.