Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

seguna

unholyangel wrote: »

From FOS website:
How did he misrepresent the course? Did it conform to what was promised (ie coverage and any qualifications upon finishing/passing), if not.....can you please provide details of how it fell short?

In brief....

They lied about the 'completeness' of the course.
They did not disclose that to be able to use the material fully, you still needed to undergo further more expensive and apparently comprehensive training.
I was told I'd able to apply the knowledge from day one after completing the course. This was clearly not the case. Up to 3weeks after the course, I'd still had to email them several times for further disclosures on key relevant contacts to do some of the actions identified.
The post course 'support' they mentioned was a shambles - it generally took up to 2weeks before emails were responded to!

seguna

Another point to make is that a few others who'd attended the same course, which I happened to meet again some months after the course gave exactly the same negative feedback and in some cases even worse than mine.

However I didn't want to base my complaint on their experiences but of course noted that it supports my position.

ILW

Was this a purely educational course or one of "these get rich quick we will show you how to make millions" type things?

seguna

ILW wrote: »

Was this a purely educational course or one of "these get rich quick we will show you how to make millions" type things?

It was educational but not in the traditional sense of say an IT course with a certificate at the end. Btw, I don't dispute that much of the content was not useful. It's the crafty way in which this course is designed to hook you into a much bigger spend than the course was sold as.

Over the last 20 years, I've done a number of professional and other courses covering a wide range of subjects from IT, stock trading, property investing to financial services and all at different prices from a few hundred to thousands of £'s. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've asked for a refund.

dalesrider

seguna wrote: »

All I can say is that I doubt this applies. Firstly, I did NOT pay online. Secondly, I DIDN'T pay using PayPal or any other online payment site/processor. I paid by filling in & signing a card payment form on the supplier's premises. I've a copy of this form and there's no mention of PayPal on it. The company then went away and processed the card payment. I was not even there to enter a PIN or anything!

As far as I'm aware, I paid direct to the training company using my CC. That makes the CC the creditor and that company the supplier.

Sadly not. What you are aware of or not does not make a creditor/debitor link.

Oddly why would they use paypal, as this would be costing them quite a bit in charges.

If you were making a payment in person. I would be worried if they did not use a PIN terminal.

Of course you still have your legal rights to take the supplier to court to claim the money back.

ThumbRemote

dalesrider wrote: »

Sadly not. What you are aware of or not does not make a creditor/debitor link.

Oddly why would they use paypal, as this would be costing them quite a bit in charges.

If you were making a payment in person. I would be worried if they did not use a PIN terminal.

Of course you still have your legal rights to take the supplier to court to claim the money back.

Surely either the OP did pay the supplier directly and the supplier simply used Paypal as their payment gateway, or it's fraud.

bod1467

Exactly. OP says they signed a payment slip (I'm guessing like the old carbon copy swipe machines) whereon the CC details were recorded.

dalesrider

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Surely either the OP did pay the supplier directly and the supplier simply used Paypal as their payment gateway, or it's fraud.

Can't be fraud as OP got the course.

What/who the retailer uses to process the transaction is upto them. Should they have mentioned it. hard to say. But we only have the OP's word they did not.

Remember in all this. The OP STILL has a right to take the company that provided to court.....

Seems they would rather the rest of us fund it, remember S75 claims are paid by other card holders in charges.. Rather than have to do some work to get their money back goint to small claims court.

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

Sadly not. What you are aware of or not does not make a creditor/debitor link.
Oddly why would they use paypal, as this would be costing them quite a bit in charges.
If you were making a payment in person. I would be worried if they did not use a PIN terminal.
Of course you still have your legal rights to take the supplier to court to claim the money back.

But how can this be right? It makes a nonsense out of the intent of Section 75. Assuming every supplier out there accepted credit cards which they then internally processed via PayPal (or other similiar entity), and that this changed the relationship between the Debtor and Supplier such as to invalidate Section 75, how can that be right?

It would completely defeat the purpose! It used to be that in the past, scam companies almost never accepted Credit Card payments for this reason. Now, it would seem they can do as they please.:(

Someone has suggested starting a Small Claims against the Creditor and letting a judge decide but I'm not so sure.

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

Seems they would rather the rest of us fund it, remember S75 claims are paid by other card holders in charges.. Rather than have to do some work to get their money back goint to small claims court.

S75 is not just about everyone else funding it! S75 claims are paid out of the massive profits the CC companies make from ALL of us who choose to use CC's and pay interest & charges etc.
There's nothing wrong with going down the S75 route - I simply consider it easier and more efficient than taking the supplier to court. That would be a harder and more involved battle.

Bottom line, when a CC company honors an S75 claim, they they not usually charge it to the Supplier's account with them? The only time it comes off the CC's profits (and thereby impacts consumers in general) is if the Supplier is in liquidation or unreachable to the CC.

I think you've misread my attitude.