Section 75 - fails to support consumer

privet21

This sounds like useful advice although a little complex and time consuming to put a good case together. I do have a great deal of evidence and it might be better for me to present it rather than rely on a 3 party to do it. Seems if you want a job done well then you have to do it yourself which is what I usually do but felt out of my depth with this! Guess I need to get the law books out and get studying!

dalesrider

privet21 wrote: »

I along with hundreds of others have been a victim of a time share scam.

I am now at the end of my tether fighting this injustice.Is there any one who can help as I am exhausted with trawling through forums and trying to fight this.

If there are so many who are in the same boat then get together and fight the company together.
Timeshare.org is a good starting point for this type of thing and support.

S75 is not about supporting the comsumer.

It is about you holding a party who had no part, other than lending you the money, in the transaction liable for it.

What you are expecting is every other credit card holder to fund you bacause you did not the the presence of mind to say NO when asked to sign a contract.
If the yhad held a gun at your head, then I could go with supporting you, but as they did not.
Then sorry you need to take this all the way yourself against the party you feel has wronged you.
NOT the credit card co.

gnaril

Im a little shocked with your post to be honest OP.

You really must not have a clear case because will rule EVERY time when it comes to timeshare sales/re-sales scams.

Christ you could give your story and some google screenshots of other peoples complaints against a particular company and they will rule on every time.

Also suprised and not suprised by Barclays response. They would know FOS rulings on all these cases and suprised it went that far, althought Barclaycard have got to be one of the worst banks when it comes to Disputes/Section 75.

You wanna name the company that you have been caught up with to possibly assist others.

Im afraid I dont have any advise as you have escalated as far as the Credit Card Section 75 aspect. As someone else has said, if you have a case and your solicitor is telling you that then sue. I would be suprised if it was a UK based company to be honest so you will run into a lot more complicated area if it is not.

All the best.

ILW

Why sign a document you haven't read or do not understand?

esuhl

dalesrider wrote: »

S75 is not about supporting the comsumer.

It is about you holding a party who had no part, other than lending you the money, in the transaction liable for it.

It's not quite that straightforward. I'd argue that a credit card company, which directly pays businesses for goods purchased by the card-holder has a responsibility to ensure that the business is legitimate and that they are not being complicit in fraud (or any other crime).

One of the services a credit card company provides is reassurance that it is "safer" to pay by card than by cash. And, whether you like it or not, or think it is fair, "Section 75" is the law of the land. You can't blame a consumer for exercising their legal rights.

Slowhand

There should be a stupidity clause because there aint no sanity clause. Given the publicity about this type of thing over the last 10 or more years I really do despair. Darwin comes to mind to be honest.

Thrugelmir

esuhl wrote: »

has a responsibility to ensure that the business is legitimate and that they are not being complicit in fraud (or any other crime).

To put it bluntly. How?

The party to the contract has to accept responsibility for their own actions.

opinions4u

ILW wrote: »

Why sign a document you haven't read or do not understand?

I've just hired a car overseas.

They write the agreement in some foreign language.

I signed it. I don't do foreign speak!

antrobus

Just one question.

Given that the OP is "being pursued by Debt collectors" who "have put a default" on their "otherwise unblemished credit rating", isn't it simply a matter of time before the case goes to court anyway?

dalesrider

esuhl wrote: »

One of the services a credit card company provides is reassurance that it is "safer" to pay by card than by cash. And, whether you like it or not, or think it is fair, "Section 75" is the law of the land. You can't blame a consumer for exercising their legal rights.

So let the consumer exercise their legal rights against the company who have wronged them.

Time S75 was high in the new FCA sights to be re written and brought upto date.

I can fully understand S75 on things like finance on certain products, where the finance is for just that product.
eg Car finance.
But a general coverall on a CC, when the credit card co has no control over either party... Is that fair?
Visa/Mastercard etc. provide ample cover on purchases. So as such do we still need S75 on basic CC purchases?