Section 75 claim tesco

Dex97_2

Advice please!!!
In may 2012 I bought a used car from a dealer for £2100. I paid a cash deposit of £200 and on collection paid the balance (£1800 cash and £100 on my tesco cc. The engine warning light came on after 2 days. Went back to dealer 4 times (80 mile round trip) and to a local garage but the light came on within hours. Suspicions it was the engine control unit (expensive onboard computer). Car came with 3 months warranty & after that time the dealer became unresponsive. I diarised everything and all communications were written & retained. I gave up and opened a sect75 claim. Never claimed before but I thought I had all bases covered & sent all documents, receipts etc. 9 months on ( a year after purchase) tesco rejected my claim. The main reason is my receipt. Initially they said it wasn't a receipt. It's a printed form headed "used car invoice" saying sold by ( dealer stamp), sold to ( my name). It shows £200 deposit & £1900 balance. Signed by dealer and dated on day of purchase. Tesco says it isn't proof of payment. They're also saying that because it says £1900 & not £100cc & £1800 cash they can't refund without a proper receipt. They don't dispute the cc payment or the deposit & may refund that £300 but would require a report from an independent garage which I would have to pay for ( this despite the garage reports I've already produced)..... I'm no expert. I bought the car in good faith & got what I think is a full receipt. Tesco seem to be just as un helpful as the dealer. They just took longer. I thought sect 75 was about protecting consumers. Had the original dealer been so inclined could he have refused me a refund on the grounds that he issued a bad receipt? I can't believe that consumer rights are so easily thwarted. I'm in the process of making a formal complaint so I can go to the FOS when they reject it. But I'm really worried that despite being cautious I've somehow allowed a loop hole for tesco to slip through. Any advice would be appreciated.

grumbler

I am no expert, but I see their point.
An invoice is just a document showing the agreed price and doesn't prove that you actually paid the balance. How could you pay £1.8K without any receipt?

chattychappy

Section 75 gives you rights that are onerous on the CC. CCs often throw up barriers to put people off. They are not really there to help you - they are there to make a profit.

What does your credit card statement say? Does it show the transaction? If it does then it's pretty good evidence if it's on the same day as the receipt. Remember we are not talking about a criminal case where its proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case the proof is balance of probabilities. ie a judge would look at the situation and say what is probably the case. Ditto garage reports etc. Tescos can invent a rule that an independent report is required before they pay out. Most CCs do this because they don't want to pay out on people's say-so. But the law makes no provision for this. S75 is simple - the CC stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the merchant in breach of contract claims. If they don't want to pay out and you sued, then a judge would assess what is most likely the reality. For large claims, sure you need expert evidence. But this is disproportionate for small claims. Since you already have some garage reports, these would probably do if they are professionally done. Tescos are always free to commission their own reports. A judge would look at your reports and ask Tescos what do they have in defence. If nothing... well, pretty simple to see where it would go.

I don't know much about cars and I don't know the conditions of your warranties or if there are other issues. But if you think you've got enough stuff there to prove your case on the balance of probabilities (ie more than 50/50) then I'd write to Tescos saying they've had long enough and their demands are unreasonable. Tell them you're sue if they don't pay up or suggest a more constructive approach. Then if they don't.. sue! (But I wouldn't do this in parallel to the FOS investigating.)

It is always worth cooperating with a CC's reasonable demands. But in the end, they are no more entitled to throw up procedure or require particular kinds of proof than you are. Your rights are statutory - ultimately you can test your case in a court and it would be for a judge to decide how to settle the argument.

dalesrider

S75 is a joke and before you think about holding your CC co liable you should have exhausted ALL other legal rights.

Why have you not taken the retailer to court over this?
Why was it not fixed under the warranty?

I can fully see why Tesco will not payout.
No reciept, or anything with the correct breakdown of payment.
No independent report.

For all Tesco know you could be in league with retailer to scam £2000 out of them.

Yet expect Tesco to roll over and pay your £2100

If you think Tesco are wrong then take it to court, sueing BOTH parties.

Dogger69

dalesrider wrote: »

S75 is a joke and before you think about holding your CC co liable you should have exhausted ALL other legal rights.

Why have you not taken the retailer to court over this?
Why was it not fixed under the warranty?

I can fully see why Tesco will not payout.
No reciept, or anything with the correct breakdown of payment.
No independent report.

For all Tesco know you could be in league with retailer to scam £2000 out of them.

Yet expect Tesco to roll over and pay your £2100

If you think Tesco are wrong then take it to court, sueing BOTH parties.

Not too biased there then?

grumbler

chattychappy wrote: »

What does your credit card statement say? Does it show the transaction?

Dex97 wrote: »

... They don't dispute the cc payment or the deposit & may refund that £300

chattychappy wrote: »

If it does then it's pretty good evidence if it's on the same day as the receipt.

Evidence of what?
What receipt?

Dex97_2

Thank you for your responses. Just a few replies to points raised & some clarifications (sorry for not quoting your points. I haven't mastered that yet.)
Regarding the receipt. I believed / believe I do have a receipt. The dealer completed it on receipt of payment and signed / dated it. It seemed ok to me (sold by, sold to, deposit, balance) and it was presented as a receipt. I haven't bought a car for years & 1.8k is a huge amount of my hard earned savings.This was an established dealer who does this every day. The fact it said "invoice" didn't mean a lot at the time. Perhaps that's naïve but in the course of conversation friends have checked their documentation (3 so far)& without exception their "receipts" are signed "invoices".
With regard to scamming Tescos I'm awaiting for a response as to what exactly their concerns are. Because if they're suggesting I didn't pay this money I would imagine the police would be involved by now. If it's a technicality regarding the invoice/receipt I would have thought the dealer had some responsibility for the documents they issue? Could the dealer (like Tesco) reject my request for a refund on the basis that their documentation was flawed? Are statutory rights really so fragile?
Regards taking the retailer to court. I've never been to a court in my life and the very idea frightens me. I thought my cc afforded protection. Tesco are very clear about that on their website.
Why wasn't it fixed under the 3 month warranty? The car went back to the garage after 5 days and a further four times. I was without the car for over 4 weeks. Why did it take so long? Why didn't it get fixed? I asked these questions many times. I never got a straight answer and latterly I got no answer at all.
Re no independent report. Ok this is the technical bit. The engine management software reports fault codes indicating "random misfires on multiple cylinders". As a result the plugs & coil pack were changed to no effect. The dealer said the ECU was removed and sent for repair to no effect. I took the car to an independent garage who doubted the ECU had been repaired due to the lack of a warranty sticker. They submitted a report (sent to Tesco) that this would need to be sent away for testing but couldn't guarantee repair or give a price until that was done. I went to a Vauxhall dealer who said their report would simply be a reading of the codes (done that) and some recommendations, plugs, coil pack, ecu (done that) but couldn't guarantee a fix or estimate a final price. Cost of report £109 +vat.
I don't want this car. I want my money back!
Finally, yes I have the cc receipt and statement showing payment to the garage on the 19/5/12, the same date as the "receipt".
Thank you once again.

yangptangkipperbang

dalesrider wrote: »

S75 is a joke and before you think about holding your CC co liable you should have exhausted ALL other legal rights.

S75 is not a joke - it is a very useful weapon in the consumer's armoury.

The problem is that many (most ??) people don't understand what S75 is and when it can be used. If you have a valid case to pursue the card issuer there is absolutely NO reason to take any legal action before hand; that is why S75 is there - to prevent the consumer having to go to Law himself, except as a last resort. If the retailer won't play ball, go after the credit card company. You actually stand far more chance of beating the "big" bank than you do a local shop.
As someone has already said, they will try and put you off by fair means or (sometimes) foul. If you have a valid case and KNOW the Law you will win.

I claimed £3000 back from MBNA several years back, at first they told me that Mastercard rules actually overrode UK Law. Whether this was ignorance by the staff or their standard opening ploy - I don't know. I wrote two letters to them - they came back with a "full and final" offer - the sum I wanted. End of story !

dalesrider

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

S75 is not a joke - it is a very useful weapon in the consumer's armoury.

It is a joke from the point of view, the the credit provider has no choice/part in the purchase.
Yet is expected to pick up the tab when things go pear shaped.

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

The problem is that many (most ??) people don't understand what S75 is and when it can be used. If you have a valid case to pursue the card issuer there is absolutely NO reason to take any legal action before hand; that is why S75 is there - to prevent the consumer having to go to Law himself, except as a last resort. If the retailer won't play ball, go after the credit card company. You actually stand far more chance of beating the "big" bank than you do a local shop.

Again, why sue a party that has had no part other than provide the funds for the purchase.
Instead of going after the guilty party.

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

As someone has already said, they will try and put you off by fair means or (sometimes) foul. If you have a valid case and KNOW the Law you will win.

Well if Tesco say NO. Then the option is to take them to court.

Yes, as I work in this area I could be considered biased.

My basis for S75 is a joke is as a CC card user and NOT my job. Why should I have to fund these cases. When there are other options avaiable.

Seems to me in this case that the retailer and warrenty co's are the one that should be shelling out.
Not YOU & ME.

If this has been reported within the 3 months and the issue is not fixed. It should mean that this is still a ongoing fault. As such the ball should be in their court to fix.


Interesting to note that even a Vauxhall dealer has NOT sided with the OP in this case.
As they have not said that

. I went to a Vauxhall dealer who said their report would simply be a reading of the codes (done that) and some recommendations, plugs, coil pack, ecu (done that) but couldn't guarantee a fix or estimate a final price. Cost of report £109 +vat.

TBH if the OP wants to take it further then that needs to be the next step.
If that means he gets the £1200 + the cost of the report then its money well spent.

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

Yes, as I work in this area I could be considered biased.

My basis for S75 is a joke is as a CC card user and NOT my job.

I can't be considered biased and I absolutely agree that section 75 is one of the greatest nonsenses in UK law when formally applied to credit card purchases.

It does make some sense when applied to car finance or similar, but not to all CC transactions above some certain limit, especially those that were only partly paid by a CC.

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

I can't be considered biased and I absolutely agree that section 75 is one of the greatest nonsenses in UK law when formally applied to credit card purchases.

It does make some sense when applied to car finance or similar, but not to all CC transactions above some certain limit, especially those that were only partly paid by a CC.

:beer: I'm in a serious state of shock here :beer: