We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Section 75 questions
Computersaysno
Posts: 1,249 Forumite
I have beauty treatment at a salon and pay beforehand with cc; so have Section 75 protections [cc co is joint and severally liable with the merchant]..
Salon injures me during treatment and I sue them.
I win.
Scenario 1: Salon refuses to pay and not worth sending the bailiffs in as no assets. Can I claim from ccc underSection 75?
Scenario 2: Salon goes bust before I get my payment. Can I claim from ccc underSection 75?
thnx
Salon injures me during treatment and I sue them.
I win.
Scenario 1: Salon refuses to pay and not worth sending the bailiffs in as no assets. Can I claim from ccc underSection 75?
Scenario 2: Salon goes bust before I get my payment. Can I claim from ccc underSection 75?
thnx
0
Comments
-
I think you mean Section 75.
It's Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
As you say, the credit supplier is equally responsible.0 -
Doh...changed it.0
-
I don't believe so - any injury will not be a direct result of the purchased product, but a service. A court award of liability is one thing, hoping for s75 to enforce a judgement is a seperate issue and removed from the original service purchase.
A claim for injury would be more properly pursued via their public liability insurer, as it would be a long shot to try and link this to a card you used for the original supply.0 -
I don't believe so - any injury will not be a direct result of the purchased product, but a service. A court award of liability is one thing, hoping for s75 to enforce a judgement is a seperate issue and removed from the original service purchase.
S75 covers goods as well as services and providing that the cost of the treatment was in excess of £100 and there had been some breech of contract or infringement of consumer legislation then there is no reason for S75 not to apply.
I can't see any reason why the card issuer shouldn't be held responsible for paying out any sum awarded by the court because if the court thought that the supplier of the goods was liable, then the credit supplier is equally liable.1 -
Was the salon treatment > £100? If not, it won't be covered by s75 anyway.0
-
shaun_from_Africa wrote: »....there had been some breech of contract or infringement of consumer legislation then there is no reason for S75 not to apply.
What about of it's 'damages' ie the treatment went wrong...I appreciate that's probably a breach of contract [at the very least lol] but just wondering if S75 joint liability extends past simple 'refunds and repairs' type of arguments.0 -
Was the salon treatment > £100? If not, it won't be covered by s75 anyway.
Yeah I was aware of that. To add to your point... the cost has to be more than £100 [and iirc less than £30,000] but you only need to pay any amount with a credit card for the card co to be jointly liable for the full amount. This is useful where shops charge 2% extra for using a credit card...simply pay £1 on a card and the rest via other means.0 -
Even if the cost of one salon visit is less than £100, S75 can still provide protection if you bought a course of treatments and this course cost over the £100 minimum.0
-
Computersaysno wrote: »What about of it's 'damages' ie the treatment went wrong...I appreciate that's probably a breach of contract [at the very least lol] but just wondering if S75 joint liability extends past simple 'refunds and repairs' type of arguments.
Yes, S75 extends beyond straight repairs and refunds.
If the seller of the service is responsible for the 'damages', then so is the credit provider.
Amongst the common misunderstandings on the Financial Ombudsman's website is:"If you bring a claim under section 75, the most you can get back from the lender is the amount of the credit."
No. Where section 75 applies, it gives the consumer exactly the same claim against the lender as they would have against the supplier of the goods or services, if there were a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by that supplier. This might be more than, or less than, the amount of the credit transaction - depending on what happened.0 -
Computersaysno wrote: »Yeah I was aware of that. To add to your point... the cost has to be more than £100 [and iirc less than £30,000] but you only need to pay any amount with a credit card for the card co to be jointly liable for the full amount. This is useful where shops charge 2% extra for using a credit card...simply pay £1 on a card and the rest via other means.
Yes. I know.
And if you did, adding all the facts to the original post is always helpful.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards