Section 75 claim refused, please help

meer53

The cc issuer could have actioned a chargeback for non receipt of goods/services.

I_was_just_wondering

louisdog (and the other posters) - I'm confused by what your saying.

It sounds like the builder clearly breached a contract. You made a contract on the phone along the lines of - I will pay you £400 as a deposit for materials, and you will come and do some building work on my house.

You don't need an invoice or any other paperwork for a contract to exist.

So why exactly did the ombudsman turn down your case? Was it that he just didn't believe your story? Perhaps because you had insufficient evidence that a contract existed or insufficient evidence that it was breached?

What does the right paperwork from the company mean?

notanewuser

I_was_just_wondering wrote: »

louisdog (and the other posters) - I'm confused by what your saying.

It sounds like the builder clearly breached a contract. You made a contract on the phone along the lines of - I will pay you £400 as a deposit for materials, and you will come and do some building work on my house.

You don't need an invoice or any other paperwork for a contract to exist.

So why exactly did the ombudsman turn down your case? Was it that he just didn't believe your story? Perhaps because you had insufficient evidence that a contract existed or insufficient evidence that it was breached?

What does the right paperwork from the company mean?

The OP has NO paperwork or anything else that proves any contract existed. All he can show is that £400 got paid to somebody. No, a contract doesn't have to be in writing, but its a lot easier to prove there is one if it is!

I_was_just_wondering

notanewuser wrote: »

The OP has NO paperwork or anything else that proves any contract existed. All he can show is that £400 got paid to somebody. No, a contract doesn't have to be in writing, but its a lot easier to prove there is one if it is!

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm more interested in the legal reasons why the ombudsman turned down the claim, and why Louisdog's would win or lose his claim in court. Based on what Louisdog has said so far:

A payment of £400 is very, very strong proof that a contract existed.

Courts look at things sensibly. If Louisdog took the CC company to court with:
- Her witness statement of what was said on the phone
- A credit card statement showing a payment of £400 to the builder
- Letters to the builder marked 'return to sender'

And the CC companies only response was simply to say "That payment could have been to anybody".

I'm pretty sure that Louisdog would win the case on the balance of probabilities.

So I'm interested to know why the ombudsman turned down his claim. What was the CC company's side of the story?

bengal-stripe

I_was_just_wondering wrote: »

A payment of £400 is very, very strong proof that a contract existed.

The payment does prove a financial relationship existed with the company, but nothing else. How does it prove it was for work to be carried out in the future and not payment for work already carried out and invoiced?

For all we (and the CC) know, it might have been some monies owed from the previous job the company has done for the OP.

I_was_just_wondering

bengal-stripe wrote: »

The payment does prove a financial relationship existed with the company, but nothing else. How does it prove it was for work to be carried out in the future and not payment for work already carried out and invoiced?

For all we (and the CC) know, it might have been some monies owed from the previous job the company has done for the OP.

Yes - that's why I'm interested to know the actual reason that the ombudsman refused the claim.

A civil court would not attach much weight to a vague defence from the CC company like:

bengal-stripe wrote: »

For all we (and the CC) know, it might have been some monies owed from the previous job the company has done for the OP.

... unless the CC company could provide some evidence to support it.

In simple terms, if
- Louisdog has a weak case
- The CC company has an even weaker case

... then Louisdog would win on the balance of probabilities. That's how civil courts work.

My underlying concern is that Louisdog may have presented his case badly to the ombudsman, and perhaps he could present it better to a civil court.

paulofessex

Op, have you contacted your local trading standards department to make them aware of this company and you issues. The company may be under investigation by trading standards and your info may assist in nailing them etc.
Failing that trading standards may know of them and if they have re-emerged under a different trading name.

chattychappy

I do agree with I was just wondering's analysis.

bengal-stripe wrote: »

The payment does prove a financial relationship existed with the company, but nothing else. How does it prove it was for work to be carried out in the future and not payment for work already carried out and invoiced?

For all we (and the CC) know, it might have been some monies owed from the previous job the company has done for the OP.

All that is true, BUT we are talking about proof on balance of probabilities. So a judge would decide on the basis of what is most likely to have happened. It's not for the OP to eliminate all the other possibilities - just persuade the judge that his/her story is more likely than not. A witness statement does carry weight. As I said, judges don't like to believe that people are lying in a civil case unless there is something to suggest that they are. Frankly, how likely is it that the OP made the whole story up (including litigating), just to swindle £400 back from the CC company? Less than likely? Well, that should be enough.

PLUS, we have the real chance that faced with proceedings, the CC will make an offer.

Based on my own experience of small claims (for myself and for clients) I'd "have a go" ! But I too would like to know more of the FOS's decision.

jonesMUFCforever

Has nobody noticed that by going to the ombudsman the credit card company have already paid a fee to them £500?
Having won the case with the ombudsman I don't think they would shrink from going to court.

OP my advice is that unless you have deep pockets do not go to court.

louisdog

Wow thanks for all the replies.

The ombudsman letter says that the time limit for a chargeback has elapsed and "in this instance I'm afraid I do not belive the chargeback would have been successful. The reason being there is no evidence to show what the purchase was for and that the merchant did not supply you with the goods or services".

regarding a section 75 they say "as there is a lack of evidence showing what your purchase was for, I am unable to safely conclude that there has been a breach of contract or a misrepresentation".

So it looks like I am scuppered through lack of paperwork and indeed lack of proof that the work was carried out.

I am quite surprised by this but maybe I was naive.

I can appeal but only with new reasons and evidence, which I do not have.

Gutted to lose £400 but I am not sure I can face the hassle (and expense) of court for an uncertain outcome - wouldn't a judge tend to uphold ombudsman decision?