Faulty Gifts Purchased By Credit Card

cwilson567

PLEASE HELP - WHERE DO I STAND?
My mum & I are in a dispute with Barclaycard about a faulty item. The company has gone into administration so we are trying to claim cost from Barclaycard. The item in question was bought on mums CC for me. They are saying that because the item was "for or behalf of _______ (me) that there is no protection under section 75 of consumer credit act 1974"

Any feeback or advice would be greatly appreciated.
xCx

ILW

How do they know who the item was bought for?

bris

ILW wrote: »

How do they know who the item was bought for?

The must have told them in the claim.

But unfortunately it's true, for some reason giving a gift takes away the right to make a s75 claim on the item. I has something to do with the goods not having a direct relationship to the card holder.

YorkshireBoy

bris wrote: »

But unfortunately it's true, for some reason giving a gift takes away the right to make a s75 claim on the item. I has something to do with the goods not having a direct relationship to the card holder.

I'm not sure that's correct.

By way of an example, take a look at case study 86/05 here...

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm

I'm sure there will be others in the FOS case study archive.

Can you cite where your information comes from?

McKneff

As your mum bought it, she should have made the complaint.

What was the price of the item. And what is the fault.

MPH80

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

I'm not sure that's correct.

By way of an example, take a look at case study 86/05 here...

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm

I'm sure there will be others in the FOS case study archive.

Can you cite where your information comes from?

What does 86/05 have to do with purchasing items for others? It merely shows that flights purchased by one person with multiple people's names on them can be protected under section 75.

The problem with this kind of purchase is the debtor-supplier-creditor relationship.

Where another party is on the end - then the credit card company can argue that there is no relationship as the supplier doesn't have a relationship with the debtor - but with another third party.

So the important bit here is (I think) who the item was actually purchased by. If it was you, but using your mum's card, that breaks the relationship. On the other hand - if it was your mum, but she then gave the item to you, that doesn't.

I realise this is semantics - but it's important.

The key bit is this:

12 c. an unrestricted-use credit agreement which is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier ”) other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/12

It defines the debtor-creditor-supplier relationship and it shows that the transaction must finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier. If the credit finances a transaction between a third party and the supplier - then it doesn't fall under that relationship.

M.

YorkshireBoy

MPH80 wrote: »

What does 86/05 have to do with purchasing items for others?

The case study refers to the flights as "presents", ie...

As a wedding anniversary present for her parents, Mrs K paid for them to join her and her husband, together with their two children, on a holiday in Florida. She used her credit card...

A "present" is the same as a "gift" (as per the thread title)...isn't it?

It matters not who the recipient/beneficiary is, so long as the transaction is conducted by the main cardholder...as you correctly go on to say.