Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

seguna

The CC has already accepted breach by the Supplier. They were just trying to say the supplier's not the training company.

Bantex_2

seguna wrote: »

The CC has already accepted breach by the Supplier. They were just trying to say the supplier's not the training company.

That does not appear to be the case from your previous posts. Are you sure?

WTF*

Thanks, seguna. My situation is slightly different in that I have no recourse with the supplier as they went out of business before I was able to utilise the service I had paid for.

I have checked over the House of Lords judgment and am confident I am legally entitled to a full refund under Section 75. Obviously, and as expected, I have already been fobbed off by the CC company with the argument that the money was paid to PayPal and therefore they are not liable.

I have been advised by a lawyer friend that I should start the small claim procedure by issuing a letter under the Pre-Action protocol as it is unlikely they will play ball. He also noted that the FOS don't seem to fully understand these types of scenarios as was demonstrated in the recent Malouf v MBNA ruling.

It's a shame you feel you are unable to make a claim simply because they are your main current account and CC provider. That's exactly the mindset they hope everyone, that considers a valid claim, will adopt.

I'm in no hurry to receive a refund but I will not back down and will be taking this as far as I possibly can.

I will keep this thread updated as and when there is any progress.

bris

The financial ombudsman has already sided with the credit cards that paypal break the link and are the 3rd party, so you will struggle with this.

seguna

Bantex wrote: »

That does not appear to be the case from your previous posts. Are you sure?

Yes. They're saying PayPal is the supplier, not that there wasn't a breach by the TC.

Bantex_2

seguna wrote: »

Yes. They're saying PayPal is the supplier, not that there wasn't a breach by the TC.

Or are they saying that as Paypal are the supplier they are not even considering whether the training company delivered or not.

seguna

Yes, either could apply, BUT both case law AND PP themselves have confirmed that they are definitely not the Supplier for S75 purposes.

Ultimately, I think this will have to be tested in court. The defendants will either cave in beforehand or it'll go all the way. I'm not 100% sure what my total out of pocket expenses will be should I lose in Small Claims...but I've put this on a back burner for now until I can handle any comebacks.