Section 75

wizzywig27

Hello all

I have a few questions in regards to section 75, if someone has advice then please help me

I am looking at buying a new car to the value of £1499 on a credit card, if I do and the car breaks down etc, does the section 75 cover me and for how long etc?

If it does cover me, and then close the credit card, am I still covered?

Thank you

chattychappy

Section 75 doesn't offer any additional protection in terms of cover. It merely gives you the option of claiming off the CC rather than trader in the case of breach of contract or misrepresentation. This can be useful if the trader goes bust or is otherwise difficult to deal with. You don't have to exhaust remedies with the trader before claiming off the CC, but CCs don't "enjoy" S75 - it is onerous on them and they put up bureaucratic barriers to making a claim.

A new car for £1499? I didn't know you could get a new car for as little as that. Shows how much I know. A brand new car shouldn't break down, but once you've had it a while... well a warranty should cover you, but it wouldn't necessarily be a breach of contract for it to break down.

Provided you've put at least some of the purchase on the credit card and the overall transaction value is over £100 (and less than £30K) then S75 kicks in. The CC remains on the hook even if you later close the account.

wizzywig27

Sorry, it's second hand through a dealer, but new to me if that makes sense.

So I am covered if something goes wrong and they said it wouldn't? I do get a months warranty but sometimes that ain't very long!

chattychappy

It would be very difficult to enforce such a verbal promise, particularly if it is vague/open-ended. Worse, their giving a month's warranty suggests that they do not intend to promising much beyond then.

You really need it in writing, clear and concise. If this is in a separate document (better if it's not), then make sure that any order form/agreement you sign doesn't exclude any other documents/prior representations. Also, if the promise conflicts with something else (eg that they only warrant the car for a month) then it should be clear that the promise is in addition/or prevails over other T+Cs in the contract. (Warranties are sometimes backed by 3rd parties or are really insurance policies - another complication!)

As I say - S75 won't give you any extra coverage beyond what has been agreed with the dealer - only the option to claim off the CC.

bris

For £1499 you are buying an old past it's life used car. In this case S75 will be of very little use as with used cars age and condition is taken into account for claims.

If it breaks down then it won't automatically be a claim and down to wear and tear which is very much expected on a car at this level.

It won't hurt to use the CC but don't think for one minute you are covered by it.

dalesrider

wizzywig27 wrote: »

I am looking at buying a new car to the value of £1499 on a credit card, if I do and the car breaks down etc, does the section 75 cover me and for how long etc?

S75 = 6 Years.

wizzywig27 wrote: »

If it does cover me, and then close the credit card, am I still covered?

Closed card makes no difference. Just keep a copy of the statement with the transaction on. Do not expect them to spend time finding the transaction for you....

Remember S75 is them giving you the money. So you will have to do a lot/all of the leg work yourself.


S75 is not a breakdown policy. It will NOT automatically cover you if anything happens to the car.
You will need to try to resolve with the company 1st.

If you do start a claim YOU are going to have to prove YOUR case that the retailer has committed a breach of contract/misrepresentation.

You can only do this by having everything in writing. Verbal is not going to be any good.


Good reading

chattychappy

dalesrider wrote: »

You will need to try to resolve with the company 1st.

Nope. Joint and several liability means the OP can pursue the CC immediately. The CC cannot refuse a claim on the basis that the OP has not attempted to resolve the dispute with the merchant.

mo786uk

chattychappy wrote: »

Nope. Joint and several liability means the OP can pursue the CC immediately. The CC cannot refuse a claim on the basis that the OP has not attempted to resolve the dispute with the merchant.

Practically speaking though consuemrs should try and resolve it with the trader first - not elast because when you approach the CC (and then the Court) they will want to know what the original trader was offering.

The Court in particular might not like it if you havent given the original trader a chance to fix it because they will (or might) think you are using litigation too aggresivley and they don't like that)

What you dont need to do is enter into long and protracted arguments with the original trader or sue them first.

chattychappy

mo786uk wrote: »

Practically speaking though consuemrs should try and resolve it with the trader first - not elast because when you approach the CC (and then the Court) they will want to know what the original trader was offering.

The Court in particular might not like it if you havent given the original trader a chance to fix it because they will (or might) think you are using litigation too aggresivley and they don't like that)

What you dont need to do is enter into long and protracted arguments with the original trader or sue them first.

I agree - I would pursue both in parallel. All too often though, people are taken in by CC operators misinforming cardholders as to their rights in a situation or put off by a series of "fobbing off" type responses, delays in replying to correspondence or unreasonable/disproportionate demands. A classic one is to say there is nothing they can do until they've pursued the trader first.

Once you issue a claim form there is still ample chance to settle and it's often weeks before you get to a hearing (during which time it's common for the court service to offer access to mediation services). Provided you've made some effort to resolve things, a judge isn't going to hold the fact of going to litigation against you. Indeed assuming the claim is below £10K then it's likely to be in the small claims track where there is limited scope for costs being awarded anyway.

dalesrider

chattychappy wrote: »

Nope. Joint and several liability means the OP can pursue the CC immediately. The CC cannot refuse a claim on the basis that the OP has not attempted to resolve the dispute with the merchant.

So how can the OP prove breach of contract/misrepresentation? Without giving the retailer a chance.....

If they took the CC to court it would be thrown out.

What really amuses me is people are happy to take a CC to court. But WILL not take the retailer to court....

Strange that given that the retailer is the one who sold the goods...

chattychappy

dalesrider wrote: »

So how can the OP prove breach of contract/misrepresentation? Without giving the retailer a chance....

Nobody is saying the cardholder shouldn't give the retailer a chance. I was correcting this point:

dalesrider wrote: »

You will need to try to resolve with the company 1st.

Which you stated as if it was some kind of rule/regulation. Which it is not.

dalesrider wrote: »

If they took the CC to court it would be thrown out.

Depends on what evidence is produced and whether the CC puts in a defence. Issuing a claim can prompt a negotiated settlement.

dalesrider wrote: »

If they took the CC to court it would be thrown out.

What really amuses me is people are happy to take a CC to court. But WILL not take the retailer to court....

Strange that given that the retailer is the one who sold the goods...

dalesrider wrote: »

What really amuses me is people are happy to take a CC to court. But WILL not take the retailer to court....

Well as someone who works for a CC, I'm sure you don't like it. It makes perfect sense - CCs are more likely to pay out on a judgment. Dodgy traders tend to disappear (or make more of an effort to defend).

dalesrider wrote: »

Strange that given that the retailer is the one who sold the goods...

Yes, but the CC is jointly and severally liable for the transaction. "Strange" that they enter into such a transaction without knowing much about it beyond the amount. But that's rough with the smooth. Usually it works out and they get their cut. When it goes wrong.. well tough.