Possible Section 75 claim - advice please!

Firemunchkin

I'd like some advice on whether or not I can use Section 75 to help me get my money back for a skin treatment I received.

I paid for the treatment around three years ago and had my last treatment within the last two years. It was for laser hair removal.

When I first went into the clinic I told them I wanted the hairs on my neck removed and they told me I was the perfect candidate - pale skin and dark hairs - and would get great results. They then told me I'd get good results on my legs and underarms, and why not buy the full body as it's half off at the moment? So, naively I suppose, I did. It was £1,800.

After the first couple of treatments, when I wasn't seeing any results, the story started changing. There's a long story to this but to be brief the results were less than satisfactory. In some instances I am actually more hairy now than I was to start with.

Overall, I'm angry because I feel I was duped into entering into this contract for services on false pretenses and misrepresentation. I expressed my complaints to the clinic staff on every visit and each time I was told a different reason why the results might not be as expected (the hair might be pale below the skin, you need to be coming more frequently, you might need to buy more treatments, the laser encourages more hairs to come out so it will take time before you see the reduction, etc etc). I feel that had I been told these things at the time of my enquiry and consultation, then I would have been able to make a fully informed decision and consequently I would not have taken such a huge risk in purchasing the full body treatment.

I did have a conversation with the manager of the clinic a few months after my last treatment and I tried to explain how the contract had changed after I had entered into it, but she plainly didn't understand and denied that anything had changed at all.

I'd really appreciate any advice this lovely forum can give me on what I can do under Section 75 (if anything, although as I purchased the treatment with a credit card that I still have I am hoping I can as it's a lot easier!) I shall be very grateful!

There's a lot of detail I've left out, so please feel free to ask whatever questions are pertinent.

Thanks everyone!

jonesMUFCforever

As I see it you paid for treatment - you received treatment.
S75 does not cover the quality of the treatment.


Now if you can prove that they guaranteed that the treatment would work you may have a case - can you do that?

grumbler

Theoretically you can claim, but with "results less than satisfactory" and without hard proofs/evidence, IMO it's very unlikely that the CC company will voluntarily pay you. Most likely you'll need to sue them that hardly is more advantageous than suing the company.

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

S75 does not cover the quality of the treatment.

Generally, quality is a part of the contract. S75 does cover everything promised by the contract and not delivered, i.e. everything that you can sue the supplier for.

>> What's not covered by Section 75?
I don't see 'quality' in the list.

jonesMUFCforever

grumbler wrote: »

Theoretically you can claim, but with "results less than satisfactory" and without hard proofs/evidence, IMO it's very unlikely that the CC company will voluntarily pay you. Most likely you'll need to sue them that hardly is more advantageous than suing the company.
Generally, quality is a part of the contract. S75 does cover everything promised by the contract and not delivered, i.e. everything that you can sue the supplier for.

>> What's not covered by Section 75?
I don't see 'quality' in the list.

Perhaps you saw a guarantee that the treatment would work?
I haven't seen anything to suggest OP has one.
Like I said if he has - claim under S75 but the burden of proof lies with the OP.,

grumbler

I did say: "... without hard proofs/evidence...".
Your statement was far too general. S75 does cover quality if there are sufficient proofs.

Firemunchkin

The only evidence I have of their claim that I would "get great results" is my word. I could easily have another consultation and get them to say it again and record it as I know this is their standard practice, although I doubt this would be admissible evidence.

They specifically do not "guarantee" any results, but just because they have a few disclaimer words does not mean their staff are not implying great results in order to make the sale. There is a big difference between "great results" and the factual situation which was that the results were much less than "great" due to the factors which I was only told after purchasing the treatments.

The key thing here is that the "great results" promised did not include certain vital facts which would affect those results.

Again, the only evidence I have is from my personal experience at my appointments after I expressed dissatisfaction on the results. On the third appointment they told me the treatments needed to be four - eight weeks apart to get results. On the fourth appointment they told me that the laser encouraged other hairs to grow and that's why it didn't look like the hair was going. On the fifth appointment I was told the hairs could be white below the skin and therefore the laser wouldn't work. On the sixth appointment I was told I probably had "thick" hairs and needed more treatments (i.e. trying to get me to spend more money).

On each occasion that I said I wasn't getting results they told me some other fact about the treatment that I didn't know before.

I would say that this information should have been given to a potential customer before they enter into the contract. As the treatment is based on achieving certain results, anything which can affect those results is crucial, contract related information.

InsideInsurance

Firemunchkin wrote: »

I tried to explain how the contract had changed after I had entered into it, but she plainly didn't understand and denied that anything had changed at all.

I'd really appreciate any advice this lovely forum can give me on what I can do under Section 75 (if anything, although as I purchased the treatment with a credit card that I still have I am hoping I can as it's a lot easier!) I shall be very grateful!

I am not 100% sure I understand either.

Do you mean you signed a contract saying "no guarantees" (obviously in a lot more words than that) but are saying that the sales person said you were guaranteed results?

Did you actually sign a contract/ get a copy of terms or is it an implied contract by nature of having paid for a service but no documents were provided?

Have you had any medical investigations (or already knew of issues) into the extra hair growth? Eg hormonal imbalances? PCOS?

To be honest, somewhat irrespective of the above the issue will be evidencing what you were told during the sales process. Evidently it was 3 years ago and there are little nuances that are easily forgotten over night let alone over 3 years which make a big difference. ie You should get great results -v- you will get great result

chattychappy

As noted, s75 does cover misrepresentation. Broadly, this is something you were told that made you enter the contract which turned out to be untrue. Contracts can be drawn up so as to exclude misrepresentations. (Often under the heading "whole agreement".) The purpose is to try and prevent a ballyhoo whereby parties try to claim that despite entering into a contract on clear and precise terms, they were actually misled in some way. Companies are naturally concerned about their sales staff making promises that can't be kept. Such clauses can stand up provided they are not unfair. (Eg because of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.)

Another issue is that the law recognises that not everything said in the build up to an agreement is meant to be legally binding. Lawyers distinguish between misrepresentation and "mere puff". Google "misrepresentation mere puff" and you'll come up with some stuff.

So I'd proceed in this order:
1) Consider what was actually said/written down (eg in brochures). Were the promises "mere puff"? Or were they representations? If so, did they cause you to enter into the contract and did they turn out to be untrue?

2) Did the contract contain any exclusion clauses relating to prior representations? If so, you might need some further help in determining whether they are effective or not.

Then of course you have to consider issues of evidence etc.

Firemunchkin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Do you mean you signed a contract saying "no guarantees" (obviously in a lot more words than that) but are saying that the sales person said you were guaranteed results?

Did you actually sign a contract/ get a copy of terms or is it an implied contract by nature of having paid for a service but no documents were provided?

No - it was simply a consultation followed by a credit card payment. There's no written terms or guarantees given. On their sales lists they do specify that the results are not 'guaranteed' (and actually no more words than that) but as I said the sales people I saw at my consultation implied that I would get 'great' results.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Have you had any medical investigations (or already knew of issues) into the extra hair growth? Eg hormonal imbalances? PCOS?

No - the thought never occurred to me. But equally, when considering purchasing a product designed to remove hair permanently, wouldn't that be an additional reason why it could potentially not work which the clinic should have mentioned?

InsideInsurance

Firemunchkin wrote: »

No - the thought never occurred to me. But equally, when considering purchasing a product designed to remove hair permanently, wouldn't that be an additional reason why it could potentially not work which the clinic should have mentioned?

If they are claiming its permanent removal then they are miss selling it.

Any form of hair removal is temporary as ultimately the skin is full of dormant follicles that no treatment can currently deal with. Many will see a long term reduction in hair but you will always get some regrowth. Some will say its a permanent reduction, given its only 20 years or so since it became commercially available its arguably a bit early but probably defensible grounds.

Given the relatively light regulation of the industry but heavy regulation of the medical industry I am not sure how far they would want to go into medical grounds of why some may get better or worse long term results than others.

It may be worth having a chat with your GP to ensure that the increased hair growth isnt linked to something unrelated to the laser/ IPL

eddddy

Just taking a step back... you could claim directly against the clinic for misrepresentation and/or breach of contract, instead of against the bank.

In theory, the burden of proof will be the same. But you may find that 'fighting' the clinic through the small claims court is easier than 'fighting' a bank's team of professional claims handlers, then 'fighting' the bank with a complaint to the ombudsman etc.

When the clinic sees that your serious about taking legal action, they might even offer some kind of settlement to avoid the hassle and the risk of bad PR.

This assumes that the clinic still exists and is solvent.