Section 75 hsbc help needed

meer53

Billie1 wrote: »

What do you mean charge back sorry ive not a clue and i havent got anything to loose ur right

It's when a card transaction is disputed with the seller/supplier. There is a chargeback right for faulty/damaged goods. Once your partner called HSBC to ask them about your situation, they would have assessed whether a chargeback could have been applicable or whether a Section 75 claim would apply.

Technically they could have actioned a chargeback, the system would have allowed them to do this. BUT, i can 100% see why they didn't offer this.

If i had been dealing with your partner when he called (i don't work for HSBC) i would have considered a chargeback to try to help because of the circumstances, but all CC issuers have different procedures to follow. Chargebacks can reject, (for faulty/damaged goods, the goods usually have to be returned to the supplier, which is pretty difficult in your case) so don't always work. I would have given the same advice if asked about a Section 75 claim though, and i would have suggested that you would need to take it further yourself. I'd feel the same as you if i were in your shoes, i know cosmetic surgery is a non essential purchase but you didn't ask for faulty implants did you ?

I'd contact the FOS if i were you and if you get no joy, then pursue it with your solicitors. I really don't think you'll get any further with HSBC at the moment.

booter

meer53 wrote: »

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

The OP doesn't enter into the debtor/creditor/supplier relationship. She doesn't have to. The CCA defines the d/c/s relationship to distinguish it from other types of agreements (such as running-account credit and fixed-sum credit, restricted-use credit and unrestricted-use credit, debtor-creditor agreements,consumer hire agreements.) This is also to distinguish it as a regulated agreement and subject to the Act's provisions.

In this case, the debtor (OP's partner) entered into a d/c/s agreement with the supplier. As a regulated d/c/s agreement, it is subject to the provisions of S75.
"If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor".

The CCA doesn't talk about the recipient of the goods/services. Which is why the OP couldn't make the claim - it would have to be her partner (as the debtor).

Imagine you bought a diamond ring on your credit card from a local jewellers. You give it to your fiancee, and she gets it valued for insurance, at which point you find out it's not a diamond, but glass. The jeweller's has long gone, so you can't go after them. And it's not your ring, but your girlfriend's. But as you paid for it, you are the debtor. And as the creditor under a d/c/s agreement, under s75, the card company would be jointly liable. It would be up to them to try and recoup their loss from the jewellers (or cover loss on their insurance).

meer53 wrote: »

I understand Section 75, it's my job.

Yep, me too!:) (Although I know nothing about chargebacks!)

jamesd

meer53 wrote: »

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

One of the users of the goods that were purchased by the cardholder and which turned out not to be of merchantable quality.

While the goods were implanted in another person and the service carried out on that other person, it's pretty clear that the cardholder also would have made ongoing use of the goods and enjoyed ongoing benefit of them, unless there's some suggestion that there were no matrimonial relations and no enjoyment of the improved view of the spouse.

The OP can't have a contract for supply of goods because no money was exchanged between them and the supplier - hence no financial consideration and no contract. The cardholder could and did since the cardholder was the only payer. Hence:

supplier: the party who supplied and implanted the goods.
debtor: the cardholder who purchased the goods and service from the supplier.
creditor: the card company in their relationship with the cardholder.
OP: the third party person on whom the service was performed and in which the goods were implanted, and within which the goods and service were subsequently enjoyed by both the debtor and the third party.

Unless you'd care to argue that a parent using a credit card to pay for dental services on their child doesn't have a d-c-s relationship with the dentist just because the goods are used in/on and services are done on another person than the purchaser? Or work carried out on a pet?

meer53

HSBC have said that they can't help because there is no debtor/creditor/supplier relationship, where i work that would also be the decision. I think the OP needs to take this up with the FOS as i feel that most CC issuers would come to the same conclusion.

I have dealt with other Section 75 cases where a similar situation has arisen and the decision was the same. Maybe the OP's circumstances will work in her favour.

jamesd

Agreed that a FOS decision would be good. From the sound of it that would provide useful guidance to both your work, HSNC and consumers, whatever the result.

Billie1977

Hi everyone I've had my decision sorry I start a new thread but I've been having trouble logging in sorry for long post just wanted to get in all important parts of fos decision thanks everyone xxx