Query regarding Section 75 claim

aaj123

I gave a fully functional car to a garage to look at a specific minor issue and two weeks later they gave me back a car with a burnt out engine kept in the boot telling me that the car engine seized on their test run. I was give just three options:
1. Pay £2000 and have them fit a reconditioned engine
2. Pay £600 towards accumulated labour charges and have the car towed back to my house
3. Do nothing and keep incurring storage charges at £40 a day

I was angry and chose option 2, I paid the £600 by credit card but would certainly like to take the matter further and claim back the cost of repairing the damage plus get the labour cost reduced as I had never asked them to do anything beyond a minor diagnosis.

Without going into the merits of my case against the garage (that is being debated on a thread in the motoring section), I would just like to know if Section 75 can be used a way to claim the money back, in view of bad service. If so, can this include the £600 as well as costs to cover repair of the damaged car?

jonesMUFCforever

If the situation is as they described it you have no claim.


You need a mechanical expert to write a report for you. Take it from there.


Age , model mileage will also play a part.


At this point we do not know if the garage gave you bad service see first point I made.

aaj123

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

If the situation is as they described it you have no claim.


You need a mechanical expert to write a report for you. Take it from there.


Age , model mileage will also play a part.


At this point we do not know if the garage gave you bad service see first point I made.

Agreed but the points I wanted to clear about Section 75 are essentially these two:
1. Can the claim extend beyond the value of the transaction itself to the overall loss occurred due to the service for which payment was made? In this case, the transaction was £600 but the loss in question was £600 + £2000 (potential repair cost)

2. Does it matter that I made the card transaction knowing at that point that I was in dispute with the garage?

jonesMUFCforever

1 You need an expert report - you do not know at this stage whether they have done anything wrong - it might have happened just as they say - we do not know what agreement you had vis a vis if you gave them a time or total cost target in price. Whenever
I have my car serviced I always ask them to phone me if it is going to cost more than £x
2 You ''freely'' gave them your card - I know you were in dispute - you could have gone to the police and reported it stolen - it would not have got you anywhere because the garage would be able to show what they did - so at the moment unless you have proof that the damage was caused by the garage and that it it did not happen due to age/condition of car you are going to have a job getting anywhere with this.


Are you prepared to shell out more money to get an independent report?

aaj123

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Are you prepared to shell out more money to get an independent report?

Yes. I have got quotes of around £250 to £300 for an independent assessment report and I think it makes sense to get this given that scrapping the car means losing £2500 approx.

Anyway we digress on our discussion about Section 75. To get into the specifics of the case itself, here is the thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4903847

jonesMUFCforever

The more I read the more I am certain you do not have a claim against S75.
If anything pursue the RAC and ask why they refused your warranty claim. Otherwise sell it for scrap.


The main reason why you have no hope is that you paid AFTER the event. The damage was known before you paid by card - so legal action is your only option other than scrapping IMO.

chattychappy

aaj123 wrote: »

Agreed but the points I wanted to clear about Section 75 are essentially these two:
1. Can the claim extend beyond the value of the transaction itself to the overall loss occurred due to the service for which payment was made? In this case, the transaction was £600 but the loss in question was £600 + £2000 (potential repair cost)

2. Does it matter that I made the card transaction knowing at that point that I was in dispute with the garage?

Q1: Yes it can.
Q2: I don't think it does. S75 is not an insurance policy. The transaction was financed by the CC (albeit it not right away). Not practical, I know, but in theory the CC could have enquired into the transaction and declined to be involved. Willing to be pursuaded otherwise though.

bris

The CC was paid after the event, you cant pay for a problem and then expect S75 to kick in.

The CC is liable before problems not after.

MPH80

There is no S75 claim here.

You can't say 'I didn't like the work you did - but I'm going to pay anyway and then try and get my credit card to give it back'.

Had you paid in advance and they did a shoddy job ... sure ... or if they did the work - you paid and it turned out they hadn't ... sure ...

Not - you did work I didn't ask for and then I paid.

jonesMUFCforever

MPH80 wrote: »

There is no S75 claim here.

You can't say 'I didn't like the work you did - but I'm going to pay anyway and then try and get my credit card to give it back'.

Had you paid in advance and they did a shoddy job ... sure ... or if they did the work - you paid and it turned out they hadn't ... sure ...

Not - you did work I didn't ask for and then I paid.

Couldn't have put it better myself.


Hope OP gets the message now.

aaj123

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Couldn't have put it better myself.


Hope OP gets the message now.

I see what you are saying and it does make sense but when I read the actual law in full, I cannot see which part of my case makes it fall outside the ambit of Section 75. Your logic is fine but all I am pointing out is that the law in itself doesn't seem to exclude my situation. Here it is for reference

75. — (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor. Read it in full
(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under sub-section (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a claim:
(a) under a non-commercial agreement,
(b) so far as the claim relates to a single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000, or
(c) under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit:
(i) which provides for the making of payments by the debtor in relation to specified periods which, in the case of an agreement which is not secured on land, do not exceed three months, and
(ii) which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one.

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under sub-section (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party in the proceedings.

75A (1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—
(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,
(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,
(c)that the supplier is insolvent, or
(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.

(3)The steps referred to in subsection (2)(d) need not include litigation.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.

(5)In this section “linked credit agreement” means a regulated consumer credit agreement which serves exclusively to finance an agreement for the supply of specific goods or the provision of a specific service and where—
(a)the creditor uses the services of the supplier in connection with the preparation or making of the credit agreement, or
(b)the specific goods or provision of a specific service are explicitly specified in the credit agreement.

(6)This section does not apply where—
(a)the cash value of the goods or service is £30, 000 or less,
(b)the linked credit agreement is for credit which exceeds £60, 260, or
(c)the linked credit agreement is entered into by the debtor wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.

(7)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 16B (declaration by the debtor as to the purposes of the agreement) apply for the purposes of subsection (6)(c).

(8)This section does not apply to an agreement secured on land.