Claiming against Sale of Good Act 1979

ThumbRemote

gik wrote: »

What reason do the credit card company give for 'throwing it out'? They are jointly and severally liable in law.

Indeed. And presumably this means OP could take the small claims action against them instead of the limited company?

InsideInsurance

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Indeed. And presumably this means OP could take the small claims action against them instead of the limited company?

They could, a more sensible approach would be to go to the FOS though as this is free to use for the OP and is designed to be done without the use of a solicitor. Complain about their decision on the S75 claim and then go to them

As we are talking about a small track level claim legal fees are basically excluded so all this advice the OP says they are getting from their solicitor who didnt even do the basics of spotting the company trying to be wound up is dead money.

fortunechange

In the solicitor's defence, it was a conversation where we were given generic, free legal advise. They were not given company names.

The credit card belonged to my mother, who paid a big chunk of the car for us as she would be using it too. They said that as there was no direct transaction between the trader and my mother and the car V5 is in our name, that they do not have to pay out. Interestingly, the solicitor said that that was rubbish too as a V5 is not proof of ownership and that we could appeal it, but that it may be easier to go through small claims - at this point we did not know about Marios' little company switching scam.

Sounds like complaining about the CC company's decision through the FOS may be a plan?

InsideInsurance

fortunechange wrote: »

The credit card belonged to my mother, who paid a big chunk of the car for us as a gift. They said that as there was no direct transaction between the trader and my mother and the car V5 is in our name, that they do not have to pay out. Interestingly, the solicitor said that that was rubbish too as a V5 is not proof of ownership and that we could appeal it, but that it may be easier to go through small claims - at this point we did not know about Marios' little company switching scam.

Sounds like complaining about the CC company's decision through the FOS may be a plan?

V5 isnt proof of ownership but is proof of registered keeper. The invoice for the sale would normally be the proof of ownership.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

As above link, the person who is party to the credit agreement must have benefit from the purchase (or more accurately must have suffered a loss). If it was purely a gift to you then S75 is unlikely to assist you and the decline would be correct.

The advantage of FOS is you have nothing to lose and so you may as well challenge them and take it to the FOS but unless you can demonstrate she did have benefit from the vehicle/ had suffered a loss because of the issues the you are unlikely to succeed

fortunechange

Thank you. I will be mindful of wording and check your link out.

wealdroam

This FOS case study may help you understand that benefit point.

fortunechange

So essentially, my mother needs to have benefited from the purchase of the car in order that a claim will be upheld under section 75, am I correct?

wealdroam

fortunechange wrote: »

So essentially, my mother needs to have benefited from the purchase of the car in order that a claim will be upheld under section 75, am I correct?

That's right... that's my understanding.
From that case study, it appears that the FOS are quite thorough... as you would expect.