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

PeacefulWaters

chattychappy wrote: »

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.

It is fair to say I couldn't find anything substantive beyond comment in a few minutes of internet searching. I'm sure there's a county court ruling somewhere but can't find it.

I've also been paying for an expensive holiday with my wife's credit card where I'm named as lead passenger. The point raised did cross my mind so I charged £1 to my own card just in case.

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... :rotfl:

nig71 wrote: »

.. All I was after was positive or negative 'advice' / or experiences,

So we're clear then - you wanted positive or negative advice, however you only wanted the thank those who gave the positive sort.

I'm at a loss to see which responses prior to your "glasses at half empty" comment had posted ridicule or sarcasm?

My comment was serious. Those who take the time on this forum to give advice frequently find that if their advice does not accord with what the OP wants to hear, then find themselves subject to negative comment from the OP.