Possible Section 75 claim - advice please!

Firemunchkin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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.

I've checked their website (they are still open/apparently solvent) and this is what they advertise:

'Laser Hair Removal'

Imagine having wonderfully smooth legs all day, all night and never having to rush out to buy razors, wax or hair removal creams. Imagine never having to worry about the tedious and time consuming task of waxing and shaving.

Enjoy the luxury of having smooth legs, bikini line and under arms every day, in the conquest for hair-freedom. Whether it’s for a big event or just your day-to-day life, laser hair removal can benefit all.

Laser hair removal works by using a laser light, which generates heat to damage or destroy the hair follicles. The process is painless and very effective, and takes less than an hour per visit. It is used across the world by both men and women. Almost all hair types can be removed, although we always carry out a "patch test" to ensure you do not suffer any adverse reactions.'


It doesn't specify whether the removal is permanent or not, but even so - for the majority of the body areas which I had treated there has been NO removal at all of hair. Without going into specifics, I have seen no results at all (apart from my legs, which now have patches of hair). From the results I have, i.e. none, this does not in any way meet with the description of the treatment on their website which was reinforced at my consultation with promises of 'great' results.

Firemunchkin

eddddy wrote: »

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.

The clinic is still open and apparently solvent. I have thought about claiming against them directly and have looked at it a little (it seems very complicated), but after Martin's recent Section 75 article I thought I would try this route first.

Can I do both or do I need to wait for one route to be finalised and if it fails to try the other?

chattychappy

Firemunchkin wrote: »

Can I do both or do I need to wait for one route to be finalised and if it fails to try the other?

Legally it is your choice. You can sue either one of them, or both of them. If you do decide to sue, you should always give that party a chance to resolve things first. However if the bank tell you you must first attempt to resolve matters with the clinic first, then this is not true. But you can if you wish.

Firemunchkin

chattychappy wrote: »

Legally it is your choice. You can sue either one of them, or both of them. If you do decide to sue, you should always give that party a chance to resolve things first. However if the bank tell you you must first attempt to resolve matters with the clinic first, then this is not true. But you can if you wish.

Ok, I'll explore the other option as well.

I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with the clinic several times. A few months after my last treatment, (which was in March 2013 I think, I have the records somewhere) I had a telephone conversation with the manager where I explained what I was unhappy about and why. I mentioned that I had spent a lot of money on these treatments which had in no way worked, but she didn't offer me any recompense or gratis treatments (which I would not have accepted in any event).

Can anyone provide advice on how best to go about a Section 75 claim in this situation?

grumbler

S75 is if you want to get money from the CC company. Is it really what you want? If so, start with MSE article: Section 75 refunds

If the CC company reject your claim, you can take the case to the FOS, then to the SCC if needed, or to the SCC directly: Small Claims Court

If you want to get refund from the company, then you go straight to the SCC (after sending a letter before action to the company).

eddddy

Firemunchkin wrote: »

Ok, I'll explore the other option as well.

I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with the clinic several times. A few months after my last treatment, (which was in March 2013 I think, I have the records somewhere) I had a telephone conversation with the manager where I explained what I was unhappy about and why. I mentioned that I had spent a lot of money on these treatments which had in no way worked, but she didn't offer me any recompense or gratis treatments (which I would not have accepted in any event).

Can anyone provide advice on how best to go about a Section 75 claim in this situation?

You have to demonstrate that there was misrepresentation and/or breach of contract.

E.g. for misrepresentation you have to provide evidence like:

"The clinic said that if I used their service, X would happen. But X hasn't happened" (It would be ideal if they said it in writing, but verbally counts as well.)


Or for breach of contract - you have to point at a clause in the contract, and say "the clinic broke that clause". If the contract was verbal, you have to quote what was said and again explain how the clinic failed to do what they said they would.


(You mention that you were dissatisfied. This isn't really grounds for a claim, unless the contract said something like "we'll refund you if you are dissatisfied.)

chattychappy

Firemunchkin wrote: »

Can anyone provide advice on how best to go about a Section 75 claim in this situation?

The kindest advice might be to forget it! From what you have said, this claim is on the margins and poorly evidenced. eddddy's post almost matches exactly what I was going to write.

In a nutshell, you need to firm up your position. You are entering a contentious process. The CC is not there to help you, it's there to avoid paying out. S75 liability is something they could do without. No doubt the clinic will think they can avoid paying out too.

So decide precisely what your claim is, how you can support it and set it out in a letter. Apply the law to your situation. Do not talk about being dissatisfied - nobody (in law) cares about that. Be polite, but firm. Do not be vague. Demand the money back within, say 21 days. I would write to both parties in the first place. See what they say. If either party asks for further documents/information, then answer insofar as is reasonable. If you can't provide what they ask for or if you think the cost of doing so is disproportionate, then say so but say that your claim still stands. The court can always decide what is needed later.

Assuming (!!) they don't pay out, then sue. Personally I'd just go for the CC because they will be in a weaker position to defend. (Less likely to have witnesses or be bothered to go to court etc.) Be prepared to do a deal after you've started the court process, either by direct contact or through a mediator. The court can help with this.

The majority of civil litigation settles at some point between the claim form being issued and the final hearing. Nobody likes going to court hearings because it takes alot of time and the outcome is uncertain.