Section 75 rejected by Finance Company... advice needed...

jonesMUFCforever

Sinhanada wrote: »

What is the problem with that? My wife and I (When we were together) regularly split who ordered and who paid, whether on finance or not. It made it easier for us in balancing our salaries and outgoings

Op

I would certainly push back on this - this is not a reason to reject a complaint - especially if you are married and both living at the same address. To me this is a stalling tactic

It is if you later want to rely on S75!

chocolady

You paid for it partly using your credit card so I would think section 75 applies regardless of who's name the order is in. Seems like game playing to me.

nig71

Thanks for all the feedback, it's much appreciated. After all I was only looking for a steer... Update is that I phoned and spoke with the Financial Ombudsman today and they were really helpful. They have opened a case and have suggested I also follow the credit card route too. So have called them and logged a claim. Need to now wait and fill the forms once they arrive.

Again thanks for the positive responses , shame that other people have their glasses at half empty, I suppose it takes all types... :rotfl:

g6jns_2

nig71 wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback, it's much appreciated. After all I was only looking for a steer... Update is that I phoned and spoke with the Financial Ombudsman today and they were really helpful. They have opened a case and have suggested I also follow the credit card route too. So have called them and logged a claim. Need to now wait and fill the forms once they arrive.

Again thanks for the positive responses , shame that other people have their glasses at half empty, I suppose it takes all types... :rotfl:

You may need to follow the finance company's own complaints procedure first. The FOS usually want that route tried first.

pvt

nig71 wrote: »

Again thanks for the positive responses , shame that other people have their glasses at half empty, I suppose it takes all types...

Another example of a poster who only wants responses from people telling them what they want to hear.

nig71

pvt wrote: »

Another example of a poster who only wants responses from people telling them what they want to hear.

Look, I posted for 'advice', the give away was even in the title... maybe you hadn't got that far before responding... All I was after was positive or negative 'advice' / or experiences, not sarcasm and ridicule, but look at it this way at least you got +1 on your posting totals. Now that's really important, I bet ... As per my previous post, fill up the glass, relax, have a think, then ask yourself the question; can I help this person?

andyuk01

Raise a complaint with the finance company, in writing

They will either reject this or pass it to the retailer stating something along the lines of the merchandise quality isn't a finance issue

When you get this write back and escalate the complaint

When you have exhausted the complaints process escalate to the FOS

They'll rule in your favour

Hopefully it'll be settled before then but that's the longest possible solution

You do also have s75 protection but this route may be easier

If you would like to explore a more technical solution think back to your home visits and whether finance was mentioned during them, if it was check if the retailer has limited or full permission

chocolady

I'm with you nig71 it's a shame some people need to be smug or sarcastic rather than helpful. It's not about what you want to hear, it's about factual negative or positive responses minus the attitude. Good luck I'm sure you will get somewhere with this. :T

PeacefulWaters

chocolady wrote: »

You paid for it partly using your credit card so I would think section 75 applies regardless of who's name the order is in. Seems like game playing to me.

Section 75 wouldn't apply if my credit card bought my daughter a dodgy item for her home. Because I would have no beneficial interest in it.

So there are many situations where S75 doesn't apply.

This one, I believe, is an exception as the OP clearly has a beneficial interest in the purchase.

chattychappy

This "beneficial interest" thing is all malarkey (at least in this context). It's not in the law and when I question it, nobody can ever point to an authority/FOS decision that supports it. The MSE link says it is suggested by an FOS decision which says nothing of the sort.

Main cardholder has to contract with the merchant for S75 to kick in.

S75 may also apply where the main cardholder contracts with the merchant but an additional cardholder uses his/her card.

S75(1) kicks off "If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement.." hence the talk about the "chain".

The FOS states: (at http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html)
In some of the cases we see, there is a question about whether the person who contracted to buy the goods is the same person who was provided with the credit.

This is important because of the connection between the consumer, lender and supplier that is necessary for section 75 to apply.

No discussion about beneficial interests. Only some commentary regarding payment systems (eg paypal type arrangements) which is a grey area though usually S75 won't help.