Section 75 hsbc help needed

meer53

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

I think before spending any more money (OP is already dealing with CCCS for their debt situation) the cardholder himself should ring the FOS for some 'free' advice.

After all, the FOS must have been inundated with referred claims and requests for information on the PIP situation and no doubt will have a 'policy' on the matter, being as (I would imagine?) most people will have financed this type of surgery with credit (credit cards, personal loans, clinic finance, etc).

She could get free legal advice from a solicitor. FOS will have been inundated with claims but the OP's problem is that she hasn't paid for the implants.

YorkshireBoy

meer53 wrote: »

She could get free legal advice from a solicitor.

Will 30 mins, and a basic fact find, be enough? How will she be able to pay to take it further?

FOS will have been inundated with claims but the OP's problem is that she hasn't paid for the implants.

She's not the one who will be making the claim though...the cardholder is.

meer53

I think if the OP does her homework and can find a solicitor who deals with this type of case then 30 minutes would be enough to give her a good idea of whether she has a claim or not. Plus, if she has financial problems, she might be eligible for legal aid (is it still called that ?)

Personally, i don't think FOS will go against CCA regulations but if they've had a lot of referrals there may be some loophole they've found ? If the OP has evidence of her depression that may help i suppose, otherwise i think it will be viewed as a purely cosmetic prodecure, so the NHS offer of removal may be all thats on offer for her.

I wonder what all the other women who can't afford replacements are doing ?

booter

DarknessGetsMe wrote: »

For section 75 to work doesn't there have to be a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship? So the debtor would have to have a contractual relationship with the supplier? Such as getting the implants in themselves?

"A debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s) agreement is an agreement made by
the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of
future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or which is
financing a transaction between the debtor and the creditor"

As I understand it the creditor is the bank. The supplier is the co. who supplied the implants. The debtor is the OP's partner.
a. There was a relationship between the creditor and supplier (they agreed the supplier could use their facilities for credit)
b. a relationship between the debtor and the creditor (the bank allowed the OP's partner to have a credit card)
c. a relationship between the supplier and the debtor (they accepted use of the credit card as payment for the "job")

I'd call that a d-c-s agreement.

meer53 wrote: »

If there is no debtor/creditor relationship, there is no Section 75 cover.

Otherwise ANYONE would be able to claim for ANYTHING as long as they knew someone with a credit card.

No, not anyone - only the person who bought the goods can make a claim. Even if those goods were bought for someone else. You're analogy implies that if Joe Bloggs bought a TV on his credit card, and my TV blew up, then I could claim for my TV from Joe Bloggs credit card co. -obviously not. But if I buy a TV on my credit card for a friend, and the TV blows up after a month then I do have a claim under S75.

YorkshireBoy

meer53 wrote: »

i think it will be viewed as a purely cosmetic prodecure, so the NHS offer of removal may be all thats on offer for her.

Under section 75 you're also covered for consequential losses. In this case, another boob job...not just removal (should the NHS not be able to do it soon enough).

That's my understanding anyway, having read various case studies on the FOS site.

Billie17

I spoke to my solicitor regarding this they sad they need a copy of the terms and condition of the c card for some reason,i think it will be on just how my partner as benefited from the purchase by what ive been reading so far,as far as im aware there are alot people in my situation partners or parents paying for this on c cards.Thanks booter i should maybe quote that to them

meer53

booter wrote: »

"A debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s) agreement is an agreement made by
the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of
future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or which is
financing a transaction between the debtor and the creditor"

As I understand it the creditor is the bank. The supplier is the co. who supplied the implants. The debtor is the OP's partner.
a. There was a relationship between the creditor and supplier (they agreed the supplier could use their facilities for credit)
b. a relationship between the debtor and the creditor (the bank allowed the OP's partner to have a credit card)
c. a relationship between the supplier and the debtor (they accepted use of the credit card as payment for the "job")

I'd call that a d-c-s agreement.



No, not anyone - only the person who bought the goods can make a claim. Even if those goods were bought for someone else. You're analogy implies that if Joe Bloggs bought a TV on his credit card, and my TV blew up, then I could claim for my TV from Joe Bloggs credit card co. -obviously not. But if I buy a TV on my credit card for a friend, and the TV blows up after a month then I do have a claim under S75.

So where does the OP come into the debtor/creditor/supplier relationship ?

I understand Section 75, it's my job.

meer53

Billie17 wrote: »

I spoke to my solicitor regarding this they sad they need a copy of the terms and condition of the c card for some reason,i think it will be on just how my partner as benefited from the purchase by what ive been reading so far,as far as im aware there are alot people in my situation partners or parents paying for this on c cards.Thanks booter i should maybe quote that to them

I think if you can provide evidence that your depression was affecting your relationship and was caused by this issue then you may be successful. It won't be straightforward though. Good luck

meer53

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Under section 75 you're also covered for consequential losses. In this case, another boob job...not just removal (should the NHS not be able to do it soon enough).

That's my understanding anyway, having read various case studies on the FOS site.

You're right, but i think those cases probably relate to people who have used their own cards for the payments. It's a difficult one this one really, i feel for the OP as her health is at stake here and i think she should be entitled to replacements. But i'm not making the decision !

Do any of the cases on the FOS website mention someone else paying ?

jonesMUFCforever

Her health was at stake when she decided to have them in the first place - but at the time it was not deemed important enough to stop her>