Section75 Claim - Case Law Help Please?‏

Agricolae

This is what I was expecting, and to be honest I would also expect the same response from FOS, at both their informal stage and their "final decision" stage.

Unless their policy changes in the interim.

mo786uk

Yep - dont expect FOS to argue the toss for you - so its go to court time

Computersaysno

mo786uk wrote: »

Yep - dont expect FOS to argue the toss for you - so its go to court time

Gotta agree...crack on...it's relatively easy to do [court that is].

seguna

Also, just to say I finally got a written response from PayPal and they differ with the CC.
They assert that they are definitely not the Supplier in this relationship (transaction) under the CCA. They are simply, as originally thought, a payment intermediary.
The CC is in a corner now as their only defense has been their assertion that they're not the Supplier. They've not challenged the core issue which is misrepresentation & breach of contract.

wealdroam

seguna wrote: »

Also, just to say I finally got a written response from PayPal and they differ with the CC.
They assert that they are definitely not the Supplier in this relationship (transaction) under the CCA. They are simply, as originally thought, a payment intermediary.
The CC is in a corner now as their only defense has been their assertion that they're not the Supplier. They've not challenged the core issue which is misrepresentation & breach of contract.

That's all good stuff, so all you have to do now is convince the CC co that they made the purchase on your behalf.

The CC co will argue that all they were asked to do was pass a sum of money to Paypal and they have done that.

Computersaysno

seguna......you're pretty much wasting your time 'talking' to pp and the ccco...just get on with court action

dalesrider

seguna wrote: »

Also, just to say I finally got a written response from PayPal and they differ with the CC.
They assert that they are definitely not the Supplier in this relationship (transaction) under the CCA. They are simply, as originally thought, a payment intermediary.
The CC is in a corner now as their only defense has been their assertion that they're not the Supplier. They've not challenged the core issue which is misrepresentation & breach of contract.

We all know PP are not the supplier, that is not the issue.

The issue is the debtor/creditor link.

Given that the debtor is who the money went too, from the credit card 1st. In this case Paypal. Not the company who were supplying. Paypal then sent it to the supplier.
Ergo. NO direct debtor/creditor link.

Computersaysno

dalesrider wrote: »

We all know PP are not the supplier, that is not the issue.

The issue is the debtor/creditor link.

Given that the debtor is who the money went too, from the credit card 1st. In this case Paypal. Not the company who were supplying. Paypal then sent it to the supplier.
Ergo. NO direct debtor/creditor link.

I'm not sure but you seem to be saying the Op is done for.

This is definitely NOT the case.

You might be technically right in your 'no link theory' [and iirc many believe you [and the FOS] are not technically correct]...but the reality is that the OP will most likely be successful of they issue court papers.

seguna

Computersaysno wrote: »

seguna......you're pretty much wasting your time 'talking' to pp and the ccco...just get on with court action

I know it seems that way. The reason I've taken my time is to be sure of who to issue proceedings against? A friend has suggested all 3 parties, the CC, the training company and PP. Not sure but I think it's cc and training co.

seguna

dalesrider wrote: »

We all know PP are not the supplier, that is not the issue.
Of course I know that! The problem is that the CC was claiming that PP is the Supplier.

The issue is the debtor/creditor link.

Given that the debtor is who the money went too, from the credit card 1st. In this case Paypal. Not the company who were supplying. Paypal then sent it to the supplier.
Ergo. NO direct debtor/creditor link.

You're mixed up. Please read my earlier posts for clarity. I did NOT pay via Paypal.