Section 75 advice and PPI

munchings-n-crunchings

Morning everyone,

I've been trying to help my boss with a section 75 claim, and it's turning out not to be as straight forward as anticipated.

Foolishly, he paid £598, taken as £299 x2, to a PPI claim company, as an advance payment. I know, I know :mad:
This company was Lifestyle Claims, the trading name of Client Connection Ltd, and this company has now gone bust.

As payment was made on his HSBC credit card, I advised him to make the section 75 claim, and the forms sent for the claim were duly filled in and returned.

This has now been going on since February. Yesterday, received contact from HSBC, saying some requested information hadn't been returned, which wasn't actually received.

What they are requesting is the Liquidation Certificate for the company. I had assumed that the credit card company would make these checks.

Can anyone advise me as to what I should be doing, to help get this claim progresses?

Many thanks

InsideInsurance

munchings-n-crunchings wrote: »

This company was Lifestyle Claims, the trading name of Client Connection Ltd, and this company has not gone bust.

Is "not" supposed to read "now"?

Ultimately it is up to you to prove your claim, rather than the credit provider to disprove it. Companies House may be able to give you the information you need however they do state the company is currently in administration and not yet liquidated.

munchings-n-crunchings

Thanks for that. Spelling, oops!


Is there any difference, when pursuing a section 75 claim, whether the company concerned is 'in administration' or 'liquidated' as the company is no longer licensed or trading?

InsideInsurance

There is a difference as a company in administration may well be become operational again and thus not be in breach of their contract and so no S75 claim.

An update of the current situation is in the latest administrators report ftp://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/image/7e/2c/56/de/57/cd/86/86/dd/15/5d/c1/a2/05/2c/2d/blREX+0L0141-118583_3-08906373.pdf

dalesrider

I gotta love these claims....

You PAID to use a 3rd party company to get PPI back from the bank/card provider. Which can be done for FREE, never mind most banks are contacting people anyway....
Now you expect that bank to give you money back because the company who were trying to get money back from them has gone belly up.....
PRICELESS

When were the payments made?
Under 540 days ago?
Has your boss received anything to say the company is no longer trading?

If the above applies then S75 is a waste of time as there are chargeback rights.

S75 requires YOU to prove breach of contract or misrepresentation. So that means you have to provide evidence to support your case.
Not expect HSBC to do all the work for you and then give you the money.....

chattychappy

InsideInsurance wrote: »

There is a difference as a company in administration may well be become operational again and thus not be in breach of their contract and so no S75 claim.

Whether there is a breach of contract depends on whether what was promised has been performed. The CC is equally liable to perform the contract from the moment the deal has been arranged. A cardholder doesn't have to exhaust remedies with the merchant or establish that they are incapable of performance before holding the CC liable.

dalesrider wrote: »

I gotta love these claims....

You PAID to use a 3rd party company to get PPI back from the bank/card provider. Which can be done for FREE, never mind most banks are contacting people anyway....
Now you expect that bank to give you money back because the company who were trying to get money back from them has gone belly up.....
PRICELESS

Yes... and the CC network willingly give merchant facilities to these outfits knowing that they are jointly liable under S75. That's pretty "PRICELESS" too!

dalesrider wrote: »

S75 requires YOU to prove breach of contract or misrepresentation. So that means you have to provide evidence to support your case.

It would be for a court to decide what evidence is required/not required. The civil level of proof is balance of probabilities. The OP made a claim on the bank in February, but only now the bank are asking for proof that the company is in liquidation - and this is hardly relevant anyway. All that is relevant is whether there has been a breach of contract.

OP: I would supply the information if it is readily available to you. Else I would send a printout from the Companies House website showing the company is in administration. Tell the CC that you will not entertain more requests for information and that unless they pay out with 14 days or perform the contract, then you will issue a county court claim. Then give them 30 days and sue.

Assuming there is some kind of contract and that it was indeed breached, a judge would happily accept the written (ideally) T+Cs together with your (boss's) word (ie witness statement) that the contract wasn't performed unless HSBC could bring to the court anything to indicate the contrary.

InsideInsurance

chattychappy wrote: »

Whether there is a breach of contract depends on whether what was promised has been performed.

An over simplistic statement as inevitably there is an element of timescale. I commission a builder to build a house for me, I cannot claim breach of contract 10 minutes after signing the contract on the grounds that the house hasnt been built yet and yet the promise hasnt yet been performed.

Unless the OP's contract had a time constraint stipulated the fact they may have downed tools for a period of time whilst getting their finances in order doesnt automatically constitute a breach of contract.

chattychappy wrote: »

A cardholder doesn't have to exhaust remedies with the merchant or establish that they are incapable of performance before holding the CC liable.

No one has claimed they have to. Simply stating that going into administration isnt an automatic breach of contract.

chattychappy

InsideInsurance wrote: »

An over simplistic statement as inevitably there is an element of timescale. I commission a builder to build a house for me, I cannot claim breach of contract 10 minutes after signing the contract on the grounds that the house hasnt been built yet and yet the promise hasnt yet been performed.

Unless the OP's contract had a time constraint stipulated the fact they may have downed tools for a period of time whilst getting their finances in order doesnt automatically constitute a breach of contract.

Fair point. But it does appear that there has already been at least 3 months of inaction and you can sue on anticipatory breach - ie when it becomes clear that performance isn't going to happen. When defending, unless the CC could show that it (or it's co-defendant) was going to perform, then I think the OP would have a good chance.

Yes, eventually finances could be put back in order - but the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. More information about exactly what was promised would be useful - particularly regarding promised timescales for action. In the absence of such timescales, I would expect a court to decide on the basis of what would be reasonable.