Credit card company in breach of section 75

pop_gun

I paid for a course in 2010. I had a dispute with course provider which ended up in court. The claim was struck out and I was order to pay cost of £5000. I have since brought another claim against the same defendant under different pleadings.

I paid for the course on my credit card. I asked for the return of the money but they fed me a line and I paid the balance. My question is can I take my credit card company to court for the court order amount?
Does the card company share liability for my attempts to get the money back?

jonesMUFCforever

No.
You paid for a course you got a course.

Whatever the dispute was - the court did not agree with you did they?

McKneff

Have you actually spoken to someone from your credit card company to see if the s75 cover extends to this.
Have you read the terms and conditions yourself to see if S75 covers this.

I have a feeling it doesnt.

Why on earth would you want to jump the gun, you seem a bit trigger happy about taking people to court.

What do you mean by 'fed me a line' who fed you the line.

opinions4u

If the court has ruled against you, in what way could the credit card company be liable?

To be honest, you'd have been better pursuing a S75 claim with the credit card company first. They may have considered it better to pay up than risk losing in court.

MoneyMagic01273

pop_gun wrote: »

I paid for a course in 2010. I had a dispute with course provider which ended up in court. The claim was struck out and I was order to pay cost of £5000. I have since brought another claim against the same defendant under different pleadings.

I paid for the course on my credit card. I asked for the return of the money but they fed me a line and I paid the balance. My question is can I take my credit card company to court for the court order amount?
Does the card company share liability for my attempts to get the money back?

Can you explain a little about the dispute with your course? S75 may only be applied when their is a clear breach or failure to provide you with the agreed goods or services. It does not usually extent to covering subjective complaints in which the contracted goods and services are technically supplied but you take issue with the quality.

In other words, if you turned up for your course and noone was there and the agreed course simply wasn't delivered, you may have a claim. If however you turned up for the course and the course took place but you have simply decided the tutor is rubbish or the course wasn't very good, you may not have a solid claim.

It comes down to what was advertised/contracted to be provided to you vs. what actually was provided to.

dzug1

If the court has ruled against you it's clear evidence that a section 75 claim is invalid. The dispute you had with the course provider has been settled in their favour.

It's saved the CC company from having to think about your case - it's been done for them

MoneyMagic01273

dzug1 wrote: »

If the court has ruled against you it's clear evidence that a section 75 claim is invalid. The dispute you had with the course provider has been settled in their favour.

It's saved the CC company from having to think about your case - it's been done for them

Playing devil's advocate - thats not necessarly true (although having the initial case be unsucessful probably isn't a great sign) but... a case can be dismissed for any number or reasons, not all of which mean there isn't actually a valid claim there somewhere.

However, my hunch is probably that the claim is related to the quality of the service and if that is the case, it really is far less likely that any court proceedings would be succesfull or that any card issuer would accept a claim under s75.

The issue of whether goods or services were provided is often assessed in a very black and white way. In this case, the course was either delivered or it wasn't. If there is a claim that acknowledges the course was provided but that it alleged the course was delivery was somehow of a substandard nature that is far harder to succesfully prove - unless specific and explicit claims were made about the content of the course which can clearly be shown as not being provided.

pop_gun

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

Can you explain a little about the dispute with your course? S75 may only be applied when their is a clear breach or failure to provide you with the agreed goods or services. It does not usually extent to covering subjective complaints in which the contracted goods and services are technically supplied but you take issue with the quality.

In other words, if you turned up for your course and noone was there and the agreed course simply wasn't delivered, you may have a claim. If however you turned up for the course and the course took place but you have simply decided the tutor is rubbish or the course wasn't very good, you may not have a solid claim.

It comes down to what was advertised/contracted to be provided to you vs. what actually was provided to.

The agreed course wasn't supplied and I made a written complaint while I was on the course. One of the instructors for the course disagreed with how the course was being conducted and I wrote this into the complaint I sent the course provider. Because of the nature of the course I made a hash of my particulars of claim and it became too convoluted. A district judge and a deputy district judge told me at 2 separate allocation hearings, they hadn't read the claim!

None of what I claim is subjective. Allow me to provide an analogy for what went on. Image you were sitting your practical driving test and the examiner told you had passed. But then gave you a provisional license instead of a full license?
In my case I was told I had failed but if I had passed I would have been given a provisional license. Which means I would still have to find a motoring school and pass another test before I got the full license.

In short they had no grounds on which to fail me. To clarify: you can't fail a test for a provisional license. This is the crux of my argument.

ILW

lost me, I am completely confused.

MoneyMagic01273

pop_gun wrote: »

The agreed course wasn't supplied and I made a written complaint while I was on the course. One of the instructors for the course disagreed with how the course was being conducted and I wrote this into the complaint I sent the course provider. Because of the nature of the course I made a hash of my particulars of claim and it became too convoluted. A district judge and a deputy district judge told me at 2 separate allocation hearings, they hadn't read the claim!

None of what I claim is subjective. Allow me to provide an analogy for what went on. Image you were sitting your practical driving test and the examiner told you had passed. But then gave you a provisional license instead of a full license?
In my case I was told I had failed but if I had passed I would have been given a provisional license. Which means I would still have to find a motoring school and pass another test before I got the full license.

In short they had no grounds on which to fail me. To clarify: you can't fail a test for a provisional license. This is the crux of my argument.

This makes no sense - and even the analogy did not help. In fact, it hindered.

You start with "the course wasn't provided" and in the next breath say "I made a writen complaint whilst on the course"

If your case was presented like this I'm frankly not surprised it failed. Sorry.

Anyway, I fear my suspicions are basically confirmed and in fact the course was run but you just thought it was cr*p.

In which case, I'm sorry but I don't fancy your chances here...

pop_gun

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

This makes no sense - and even the analogy did not help. In fact, it hindered.

You start with "the course wasn't provided" and in the next breath say "I made a writen complaint whilst on the course"

If your case was presented like this I'm frankly not surprised it failed. Sorry.

Anyway, I fear my suspicions are basically confirmed and in fact the course was run but you just thought it was cr*p.

In which case, I'm sorry but I don't fancy your chances here...

The course wasn't provided per the terms and conditions for the course. If a customer makes a complaint and the seller does nothing to rectify the matter being complained about, then i have a claim against the seller.
Liability also falls on the credit card company as they are equally liable. It's the reasonableness of claiming for cost. I'm looking for a legal precedence.

My earlier analogy was meant to show the terms of the contract were inherently unfair. my current claim uses the unfair contract terms act 1977.