Advice Please on section 75 consumer credit act, Barclay card trying to side swipe us

Tsia

Advice Please on section 75 consumer credit act, Barclay card trying to side swipe us with a technichality..

Their Excuse? .... "the invoice is in your wifes maiden name and doesnt match the name on your card account"

they have come up with something called DCS agreement.. which they are basically stating it all has to be in one name? even though the invoice was put into wifes maiden name but transaction was done from Husbands account,
We even have the marriage certificate that is dated a month after the purchase in question to tally up all the names and the credit card transaction slips stapled to the invoice.. that all tallies up aswell..

Are barclay card trying to pull a fast one? they have been stringing us along since may to come to a decision.. even asking proof of the relationship between the two names at one point when asking for all other info to be sent to them for the case.

The purchase is for two transactions £1200 and £1000 for a car that was sold but turned out as defective when delivered by the garage.
..the garage in question have washed the hands of us and will not enter into discusion further so we had to use the credit consumer act setcion 75. thinking we would be covered.

Does anyone have more information on this so called DCS agreement? .. are Barclaycard trying to pull a fast one?
I mean.. why ask us for the relationship proof between the two names last month??

We have not taken the decision as final and a review team will be calling back.. after wishing to make a formal complaint and mentioning that we will have no choicebut to speak with the financial Ombudsman.

I would love to have some legal ammunition ready for when they do.

YorkshireBoy

DCS refers to debtor-creditor-supplier

The cardholder is the debtor
The card provider (Barclaycard) is the creditor
The garage is the supplier

Card providers can get awkward when the names don't match. In effect, your partner bought a gift so isn't the 'beneficiary' (if I've read the situation correctly?).

Why didn't you refer the matter to the financial ombudsman after 8 weeks, as is your right under Barclaycard's complaint process?

Tsia

We have not referred this to the F.O basically because we have been waiting for Barclaycard to make a decision, which they have done today. Also, they asked for further details about 4 weeks ago so that has slowed the process down.

dazza.mk

You have got an issue if the purchase was in the wife's name but made on the husband's credit card account.

Note this isn't a high enough level court to set a precedent, but it explains the issues:



http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=651

In similar circumstances the FOS has previously sided with the credit card company (see 62/02 below)

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/62/62-consumer-credit.htm


Edit:- The issue isn't with the maiden name as you can prove this is the same period, but rather the credit card agreement and car purchase agreement hasn't been made by the same person.

thenudeone

There are problems with s75 when it comes to this type of transaction.

Generally you need a clean and straightforward relationship eg:
Cardholder CONTRACTS IWTH card company for supply of credit
Cardholder (= Purchaser of goods) CONTRACTS WITH Supplier of goods
CC Company is jointly liable with the supplier for contract breaches because the card company

Additional or secondary cardholders have not entered into a credit agreement with the card company and the general view is that this means they can't take action against the card company.

The main cardholder IS party to an agreement BUT if the additional cardholder has made a purchase, the main cardholder is probably not party to the purchase contract with the supplier. As a third party, they cannot take action against the supplier, because they haven't entered into a contract with the supplier.

In some circumstances it could be argued that the additional cardholder was simply acting as the main cardholder's agent.
For example: the additional cardholder could drive the main cardholder's car to a garage for repair, and make the card payment, but the price had been agreed in advance by the main cardholder.
But this is a murky area ripe for disagreements and fob-offs.

The safest rule is for any purchases over £100, always use a card account where the main cardholder is also the purchaser.

Tsia

There is no second card etc in this transaction - the purchase was made on the card (husband) but the invoice has been made to another name (wife's maiden name), even though it's husband and wife since the transaction. Just get the feeling Barclaycard are using a technicality to avoid reimbursement.

dazza.mk

Tsia wrote: »

There is no second card etc in this transaction - the purchase was made on the card (husband) but the invoice has been made to another name (wife's maiden name), even though it's husband and wife since the transaction. Just get the feeling Barclaycard are using a technicality to avoid reimbursement.

OK then what the Credit card company is arguing is taht for Section 75 you can hold credit card company liable for the rights relating to the sales contract. But you've potentially got the issue that "husband" can hold the credit card liable, but he has no rights under sales contract as it was made with "wife".

Being married makes no difference as credit cards cannot be joint but the liabilities (and also the Section 75 protection) relate to an individual.

Very grey area and you're going to have to argue your case and be prepared to take it to FOS and/or Small Claims court.

Wywth

Tsia wrote: »

There is no second card etc in this transaction - the purchase was made on the card (husband) but the invoice has been made to another name (wife's maiden name), even though it's husband and wife since the transaction. Just get the feeling Barclaycard are using a technicality to avoid reimbursement.

No you said/implied in the OP that you were not husband and wife until 1 month after the transaction

Tsia wrote: »

Advice Please on section 75 consumer credit act, Barclay card trying to side swipe us with a technichality..

Their Excuse? .... "the invoice is in your wifes maiden name and doesnt match the name on your card account"

they have come up with something called DCS agreement.. which they are basically stating it all has to be in one name? even though the invoice was put into wifes maiden name but transaction was done from Husbands account,
We even have the marriage certificate that is dated a month after the purchase in question to tally up all the names and the credit card transaction slips stapled to the invoice.. that all tallies up aswell..

Are barclay card trying to pull a fast one? they have been stringing us along since may to come to a decision.. even asking proof of the relationship between the two names at one point when asking for all other info to be sent to them for the case.

The purchase is for two transactions £1200 and £1000 for a car that was sold but turned out as defective when delivered by the garage.
..the garage in question have washed the hands of us and will not enter into discusion further so we had to use the credit consumer act setcion 75. thinking we would be covered.

Does anyone have more information on this so called DCS agreement? .. are Barclaycard trying to pull a fast one?
I mean.. why ask us for the relationship proof between the two names last month??

We have not taken the decision as final and a review team will be calling back.. after wishing to make a formal complaint and mentioning that we will have no choicebut to speak with the financial Ombudsman.

I would love to have some legal ammunition ready for when they do.

thenudeone

Wywth wrote: »

No you said/implied in the OP that you were not husband and wife until 1 month after the transaction

Husband / wife; married or unmarried; same surname or not; is all irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether the main cardholder had a contract with the supplier of the goods or services. If he didn't, it's very difficult to see how they could sue the supplier and therefore the card company (who is deemed to be a party to the contract because of s75).

Of course the person who DOES have a contract with the supplier can sue the supplier themselves. If they have legal cover from a trade union, club, or as an extra with house insurance, they should use that to progress things. I have used such services a couple of times and in both cases the supplier backed down once a solicitor was on the case.

s75 is not an magic bullet remedy. All it does is provide another party who can be sued. Ultimately a breach of contract or misrepresentation still has to be proved.
For a four figure purchase like a car, I would expect the card companies to fight a s75 claim just as vigourously as the original supplier would fight a claim.

If the original supplier is solvent, they are probably the best party to take legal action against, IMO.

redpete

Tsia wrote: »

Just get the feeling Barclaycard are using a technicality to avoid reimbursement.

Well you are using a technicality (also known as 'the law') to claim from the CC company because you paid some or all of the price with the CC. The CC company are using the same law (that requires the borrower to be the same party as made the contract with the supplier) to clarify whether they are liable or not..

pompeyred

Tsia wrote: »

I would love to have some legal ammunition ready for when they do.

I am afraid the legal ammunition on here is far from that you would get if paying for it.

In your situation I would try and obtain 'insured' legal advice which you have already been alerted too and that might be found for free with an employers advice line and your home or car insurance etc or by picking up the good old yellow pages (more likely google) and calling someone.

The advice you get here will be 'best intent' and for the most part is formed on good foundation, but you seek a resolve in this one and for that reason alone I would try and speak to someone who would 'nail their colours to the mast' as it were for you.