Section 75

dalesrider

chattychappy wrote: »

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

Well as far as CC's go. You will have to and the regulator will also look on this in a unfavourable light against the person bringing the case.

Remember it is upto YOU to prove your case.

chattychappy wrote: »

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).

I could not careless if someone takes it to court. That is their right. End of the day everyone who uses a CC pays for these as these payouts are factored into costings.

chattychappy wrote: »

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.

When S75 was brought into life CC's were not in common use. S75 was designed for things where the credit co were part and parcel of the purchase such as Hire purchase of a car.

Hopefully S75 will get a major overhaul and only after failing via ALL legal means will the CC be brought into play.

dazza.mk

dalesrider wrote: »

Well as far as CC's go. You will have to and the regulator will also look on this in a unfavourable light against the person bringing the case.

Remember it is upto YOU to prove your case.

I'd agree with you that a customer shouldhave to at least approach the retailer first, so although they may regard the customer as a pain in the rear if they haven't taken the course of least resistance and tried to sort things out with the retailer first they aren't truly applying Section 75 if they penalise the customer for not approaching the retailer first.

dazza.mk

wizzywig27 wrote: »

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!

dalesrider wrote: »

S75 = 6 Years.

OP, note the 6 years is the max under Sale of Goods Act, depending on the description a used car MAY be much less with anything possibly going wrong be considered to be wear and tear and therefore not covered.

bris

But a Judge will penalise the customer if they don't try to resolve the matter with the retailer. It's widely known that the courts take a dim view on a customer who stubbornly thinks they are just entitled to a refund without trying to resolve the problem, the CC also has this defence.

The CC may be jointly liable but the retailer still has to refuse to try and remedy the problem before they have to pay out.

chattychappy

bris wrote: »

But a Judge will penalise the customer if they don't try to resolve the matter with the retailer. It's widely known that the courts take a dim view on a customer who stubbornly thinks they are just entitled to a refund without trying to resolve the problem, the CC also has this defence.

"Widely known" ?? Nobody says the customer shouldn't attempt to resolve with the retailer/CC first. But only in very exceptional cases would the judge award additional costs in a small claim (<£10,000) because of the conduct of a party. I have NEVER seen it happen in small claim(*). A judge would never "penalise" a party in the way you suggest. Things become more complicated in fast track/multitrack. But even then, it's more about the conduct of the parties AFTER the claim form has been issued (and following the relevant pre-action protocol).

bris wrote: »

The CC may be jointly liable but the retailer still has to refuse to try and remedy the problem before they have to pay out.

"have to" - no basis for this under S75. It is "joint and several liability". If the retailed HAS paid out, then this reduces your claim on the CC. "refusing to try and remedy the problem" doesn't enter in to it.

(*well once. But that was costs against the losing party and it was rather strange.)