Section 75

Dawnie_P

Is there a time limit on being able to claim under Section 75? My credit company told me they were not liable when an Italian Car Hire company put £800 on my card 3 weeks after I returned it when there was no damage etc. But now I see they were liable. Can I still make a claim?

chattychappy

S75 gives you 6 years from breach of contract. In this case there may well have been a breach of the hire agreement if the company put through charges that were not provided for.

But there are probably better ways to dispute hire car charges, eg via chargeback. Perhaps someone else will be along shortly who has more experience of this well trodden path.

bris

Only problem is the hire company will have a reason ready for the CC company to justify the charges. S75 will fail when they produce any evidence they have. You need to show a clear breach, it's not easy to do when it comes to car hire or any other services that take a card as security.

InsideInsurance

To the OP - there is no explicit limits in S75 of the CCA. Implicitly there are limits however as the bank is only liable when the merchant is liable and so the law of limitations, or local equivalents if the contract is not under English Law, will dictate a timescale for that liability.

If this had been a UK contract then the limit is normally 6 years for England or 5 years for Scotland. Presumably the contract is under Italian law though in which case you'd need to research their time limits. I know that a lot of continental europe works on much longer timescales than us but Italy could be an exception.

bris wrote: »

Only problem is the hire company will have a reason ready for the CC company to justify the charges. S75 will fail when they produce any evidence they have. You need to show a clear breach, it's not easy to do when it comes to car hire or any other services that take a card as security.

The Bank will not necessarily contact the merchant prior to dealing with the OPs claim. You have to remember that this is S75 not a Chargeback and so the money comes out of the banks pocket though they then have a subjugated right of recovery from the merchant.

Given the most common reason for a S75 claim rather than a claim against the merchant is that the merchant has ceased trading then banks processes are often based around the assumption that the merchant no longer exists/ isnt cooperative.

The main question will be what evidence the OP has that they brought it back undamaged

chattychappy

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The main question will be what evidence the OP has that they brought it back undamaged

I agree with this if you are trying to establish breach to go the S75 route.

But leaving S75 for now, the onus of proof is on the CC to prove (on balance of probabilities) that a transaction was authorised rather than on the cardholder to demonstrate that it wasn't.

In the case of the hire agreement, no doubt the cardholder signed some sort of authority to the effect that if there is damage to the car then further charges can be put through.

If the cardholder now disputes the charge saying that the car was undamaged, is it not now for the CC to prove that there was damage in order for the charge to be considered authorised?

InsideInsurance

chattychappy wrote: »

the onus of proof is on the CC to prove (on balance of probabilities) that a transaction was authorised rather than on the cardholder to demonstrate that it wasn't.

In the case of the hire agreement, no doubt the cardholder signed some sort of authority to the effect that if there is damage to the car then further charges can be put through.

If the cardholder now disputes the charge saying that the car was undamaged, is it not now for the CC to prove that there was damage in order for the charge to be considered authorised?

The dispute is not over if authorisation was given for damage/ fines etc to be collected from the card but the fact that there was actual damage.

I also disagree that the onus of proof is 100% on the credit card company otherwise you could automatically win every case where the merchant has gone bust because the bank would never be able disprove you hadnt returned the item or whatever you claimed. You'd be expected to provide evidence that the item had been returned, and in this case more accurately that it had been returned undamaged.