Can the Credit card Company charge me interest when in dispute over section 75

davidious

Engine issues where noticed the whole time as it was really smoking. If you didn't start it for while it would start on the third or even fourth time.

But it was not issues for the MOT. The rust issues are major but not enough issues to Fail MOT. after driving it back the rust started coming through a Lot more quickly. While it wasn't stated on the MOT the Rust around the windscreen would cause major issues in the very near future that if was not treated in the next Year could case the Vehicle to be unrepairable.

an MOT has a very low standard and is only concerned about Safety and legal aspects of Vehicle. especially compared to other Countries Tests such as Germany.

You Still have issues such as Driveability and reliability. and Structure and holes

eskbanker

Yes, MOT test certainly isn't a comprehensive assessment of a vehicle's condition, but issues not picked up in an MOT test are bound to be considered more debatable if you're trying to make a case of misrepresentation.

Personally I think that statements like "after driving it back the rust started coming through a Lot more quickly" actually weaken your case rather than strengthening it when the onus is on you to prove that the dealer knew the vehicle was in a worse condition than stated, and if you're effectively ignoring the opinion of an expert by trying to repair a complete lemon at great expense instead of rejecting it then that's inevitably going to look odd to a court....

davidious

There is obvious signs of recent rust cover up, under 6 months it's on the dealer or the credit card to prove that the problems were not there or any repair is not needed not the other way round.

chattychappy

To re-address the original question based on what you have said recently:

S75 makes the CC jointly liable in the case of breach of contract or misrepresentation. In certain circumstances, this means you can rescind the contract (ie reject the goods). Both parties are wound back to the starting point and do not have to perform their obligations. You are due a refund and would not be liable for interest, because you are no longer liable for the original payment.

You did not exercise your option to rescind. You have decided to keep the car and rejected the refund. Therefore in normal contract law you are liable to pay the amount due (which you did) and the CC are able to charge interest. You must peform your obligations.

Again, in contract law you are entitled to damages if you can show breach (which it seems you can). As you point out, the new Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives you the option (subject to certain provisos) to a reduction by "an appropriate" amount of the purchase price and a refund where an amount has already been paid. In my view:

1) If you use this option, you can only obtain a reduction up to the full purchase amount. I do not see how you could obtain more than a full refund as this isn't provided for in the Act.

2) Whilst you might be owed a refund, this does not mean you have the right to "set off" this amount against your CC balance in order to reduce your liability to interest. You are liable for the interest, and the CC/merchant are liable to pay you interest (at the statutory rate) on any refund you are due which is paid late.

davidious

Thanks you very much for that best advice so far. Never asked for more than purchase price.


Dealer cut off contact gave them the option of Rejection or or Repair
Went to credit card company
Asked CC for Repair costs
Offered refund on purchase price only and proof of scrapping
Asked for price reduction rejected (cheapeast option)
Asked repair again
Took case to Court for price reduction.
CC Defended
In in offer for repair costs as per there Defense.

davidious

Update
The judge asked for statement of repair costs which we supplied.
Going back to the defense stage they attached a Part 20 against the dealer. Not known to us this is all they did. When it went before judge as they had defaulted they got 3 days to pay the claims fee which they did.

Now the court is waiting for proof of service on the Dealer and they still not supplied it. After nearly 2 weeks. Seems they using every tactic to delay the judgement.

davidious

The court is stil waiting for the proof of service.
Seems they not given The bank a deadline.

chattychappy

Litigation really gets stuck if parties start disputing paperwork issues. Parties often don't bother with certificates of service (N215), but if it's queried it becomes a bit of a game.

I was involved in a large case (we're talking millions) and it is quite amazing to see how well things can work when opposing parties cooperate at the level of process/procedure. Generally judges appreciate people showing an adult approach so it's in the interests of parties to do things decently.

davidious

New update No part 20 Service supplied still. Went back to judge.
And He decided on a Half hour hearing. Which we are waiting for a Court date.

If they show up Could you imagine being Halifax's solicitor in hearing.

derps

davidious wrote: »

If they show up Could you imagine being Halifax's solicitor in hearing.

Yeah, it would be fun pointing out how wasteful and unreasonable making a court claim was when they offered a full refund but you wanted to have your cake and eat it, too.