Section 75

woodkirk

Still having problem with HSBC/Financial Ombudsman over fitted bathroom after 3 years! Not satisfied with Dolfin product or finish and Furniture Ombudsman's report as he was unable to check electrical or plumbed fittings and said that fitting was to an acceptable standard.
Financial Ombudsman adjudicator says that my expectations are too high and under Consumer Act as long as goods are fit for purpose, then he will find against me. He does not accept 'cosmetic' faults like sealants allowing water penetration through the floor, non flush or unsquare fittings or faulty shower controls to be of sufficient importance to uphold my claim.
Adjudicator says that unless I can prove fault, he will not find in my favour. Have sent photographs, but these seem to be ignored. I have tried to argue that HSBC should accept their responsibility and Section 75 is a form of PPI so having made a claim they or their underwriters should accept or give a rebuttal to the claim.
Help! Does anyone know who to talk to get satisfaction? My claim keeps hitting the buffers. Does anyone have case studies of a similar problem:(

bris

The ombudsman wants you to prove fault, you will need to get the proof. Take the retailer/fitter to court and get a judgement against them. The ombudsman would not be able to refute this, then again they wouldn't have to, get a court judgement and you automatically win.

It's nothing like PPi, they don't just give refunds because you say so, everybody would just do a S75 claim and pay for nothing if that was the case, the burden of proof is on you.

Slowhand

woodkirk wrote: »

Still having problem with HSBC/Financial Ombudsman over fitted bathroom after 3 years! Not satisfied with Dolfin product or finish and Furniture Ombudsman's report as he was unable to check electrical or plumbed fittings and said that fitting was to an acceptable standard.
Financial Ombudsman adjudicator says that my expectations are too high and under Consumer Act as long as goods are fit for purpose, then he will find against me. He does not accept 'cosmetic' faults like sealants allowing water penetration through the floor, non flush or unsquare fittings or faulty shower controls to be of sufficient importance to uphold my claim.
Adjudicator says that unless I can prove fault, he will not find in my favour. Have sent photographs, but these seem to be ignored. I have tried to argue that HSBC should accept their responsibility and Section 75 is a form of PPI so having made a claim they or their underwriters should accept or give a rebuttal to the claim.
Help! Does anyone know who to talk to get satisfaction? My claim keeps hitting the buffers. Does anyone have case studies of a similar problem:(

Why do you think Section 75 is a form of PPI? If that's your argument I'm not surprised your claim has failed.

dalesrider

Have you taken the company to court over the unacceptable standard of the work?
That should be your 1st recourse. Of course to do this you need to be able to prove your case.

Why do you think the CC should roll over and give you your money back just because you think its not a acceptable standard of work.

gb12345

woodkirk wrote: »

Section 75 is a form of PPI

I've heard it all now :rotfl:.

woodkirk

thanks for your humour - it is taken from this website as an argument for S75 being a free payment protection insurance to get the adjudicator to accept a certain level of proof

gb12345

woodkirk wrote: »

thanks for your humour - it is taken from this website as an argument for S75 being a free payment protection insurance to get the adjudicator to accept a certain level of proof

Nowhere on this site does it say that S75 is a form of PPI.

It might say that S75 provides an insurance (safety) for your credit card payments, but that is a lot different than saying that it is PPI (the product).

PPI is a product that insures against specific occurences and has been shown to have been missold in the past, hence the refunds for many people.

You have been told by the FOS that they will find against you, so your only recourse is the courts.

wealdroam

woodkirk wrote: »

thanks for your humour - it is taken from this website as an argument for S75 being a free payment protection insurance to get the adjudicator to accept a certain level of proof

Actually what it says on this website is...

What is Section 75? It's a vital law made in the 1970s which means your credit card company must take responsibility if things go wrong with a purchase.

In a nutshell...
Pay for something costing between £100 and £30,000 on a credit card and the card issuer's equally liable if something goes wrong.
This isn't the credit card company being nice, it's a legal protection put in place so that you're never in the position of paying debt for something you didn't receive or wasn't as it should've been. Whether it's a flight, kitchen, computer or anything else, pay on the card and the card company's responsible too.

Note that it says the card issuer is equally liable when something goes wrong.

You still need to show that something has gone wrong.