We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
section 75 claim problem
317537
Posts: 3 Newbie
in Credit cards
I bought a second hand car from a dealerfor £900 over the phone using my Lloyd's tsb credit card after seeing the car advertised on the dealers web site. i was assured by the dealer that the car was in good condition with just a few scratches around the body and it was a well looked after little car. the car was delivered a couple of days later. upon delivery i inspected the car to find problems with the central locking, immobilizer and car stereo. i also noticed some paint flaking from one of the doors and it was a different colour underneath. i then ran an online check of the car on the car only to find out that it had been written of twice as a cat-c then a cat-d.
i phoned the dealer and complained about the things that i have found. they refused to give me a refund and said it's got an MOT so it's fit for it's purpose so your not getting a refund. i then wrote to the dealer the next day informing him that i wanted a refund as the transaction was coverd by the distance selling regs and the car was not as described (sale of goods act etc). this was sent recorded delivery (but i never received a reply).
i contacted consumer direct who told me i have claim for the distance selling regs non-compliance and the not as described under the sale of goods act. i could make a claim for one or the other but not both.
so i decide to make a section 75 claim against my card (as it seemed the easyest way of dealing with it). the claim was passed from department to department for three weeks whils i forwarded them all the doumentation i had regarding my claim (summary of dispute, invoices, condition of sale, correspondence to the dealer). on the fourth week they say that they have contacted the dealer and he says i was given the chance to check the vehicle but declined. (big lie, as it was bought at a distance over the phone). they also said that as there is no documentary evidence of the vehicle being misrepresented they can't take this any further. is this right? do they need documentary evidence (because i have never seen this clause anywhere)? also would i be better battling it out with Lloyds tsb or just take the dealer to court for the distance selling infringement?
i have contacted Lloyds tsb asking why they have taken the dealers word against mine, pointing out that he has offered no proof of me having the oppertunity to check the car and decining and no proof that it wasn't misrepresented.
It seems to me that lloyds tsb will drag their feet over a claim untill they can find any reason they can to try and close the claim down. meanwhile i have a duff car sitting outside my house (that hasn't been moved since it was delivered) and i'm no nearer to getting mymoney back.
i phoned the dealer and complained about the things that i have found. they refused to give me a refund and said it's got an MOT so it's fit for it's purpose so your not getting a refund. i then wrote to the dealer the next day informing him that i wanted a refund as the transaction was coverd by the distance selling regs and the car was not as described (sale of goods act etc). this was sent recorded delivery (but i never received a reply).
i contacted consumer direct who told me i have claim for the distance selling regs non-compliance and the not as described under the sale of goods act. i could make a claim for one or the other but not both.
so i decide to make a section 75 claim against my card (as it seemed the easyest way of dealing with it). the claim was passed from department to department for three weeks whils i forwarded them all the doumentation i had regarding my claim (summary of dispute, invoices, condition of sale, correspondence to the dealer). on the fourth week they say that they have contacted the dealer and he says i was given the chance to check the vehicle but declined. (big lie, as it was bought at a distance over the phone). they also said that as there is no documentary evidence of the vehicle being misrepresented they can't take this any further. is this right? do they need documentary evidence (because i have never seen this clause anywhere)? also would i be better battling it out with Lloyds tsb or just take the dealer to court for the distance selling infringement?
i have contacted Lloyds tsb asking why they have taken the dealers word against mine, pointing out that he has offered no proof of me having the oppertunity to check the car and decining and no proof that it wasn't misrepresented.
It seems to me that lloyds tsb will drag their feet over a claim untill they can find any reason they can to try and close the claim down. meanwhile i have a duff car sitting outside my house (that hasn't been moved since it was delivered) and i'm no nearer to getting mymoney back.
0
Comments
-
From OFT
Does the seller normally sell his stuff without face-face contact? (Doubt it as it is vehicles). If it is only occasional then DSR will probably not apply and you will need to fall back on Sect 75.The Distance Selling Regulations (DSRs) apply to your business if you sell goods or services to customers without face-to-face contact, using an organised distance sale or service provision scheme.
Leaving aside the fact that somebody was daft enough to buy a car sight unseen!This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
You bought a car without even looking at it?
Are you insane?
My own view, which may not align to the law of the land, is that other Lloyds TSB credit card holders and LBG shareholders should not have to subsidise your gross stupidity.0 -
First post??? Stupid story??????????
TROLL alert !!!!!!!!!!!!0 -
i've bought all of my previous vehicles (cars & bikes) off the internet and never had a problem (lots of cars for sale on ebay that you don't get to see before you buy them). you would expect to encounter problems if you bought privately on the net but not if you bought from a business, that has credit card merchant services (that supposedly offer protection to the consumer when things go wrong rather than paying cash).0
-
i've bought all of my previous vehicles (cars & bikes) off the internet and never had a problem (lots of cars for sale on ebay that you don't get to see before you buy them). you would expect to encounter problems if you bought privately on the net but not if you bought from a business, that has credit card merchant services (that supposedly offer protection to the consumer when things go wrong rather than paying cash).
Bit naive or what ? Just because a seller takes Visa doesn't make them honest.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
