Easirent Car Loan

wealdroam

Tammboy, I believe a Section 75 claim is ruled out because the service purchased was for your wife's benefit but the credit card account used is in your name.

Subsection (1) of Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act says:

(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

Your wife made the contract with the hire company for the use of a car for her benefit.

As hinted earlier, you have no contract with the hire company - it is your wife that has that contract. It therefore follows that you have no claim against the hire company, and thus no claim under Section 75 against the credit card company.

Your wife also has no claim against the credit card company simply because she doesn't hold the card account.

Whilst not being quite the same as your situation, perhaps this FOS case study may help you understand this.

arcon5

If the card was used without your authorisation then you should call the police and report it. You will get your money back then. Your wife might not be happy when she gets arrested though

Silver-Surfer_2

arcon5 wrote: »

If the card was used without your authorisation then you should call the police and report it. You will get your money back then. Your wife might not be happy when she gets arrested though

He maybe in a spot of bother himself too, how many other times has he allowed his wife to commit fraud?

[Deleted User]

Tammboy wrote: »

In fact, I raised this point with the CC company, that my credit card was used to process the payment without my authorisation. However, RBS CC claimed that because I'd given the pin to my wife she had been authorised to use it.

You'll get nothing back from this now.

I'd also be very careful telling the Bank that you allowed your wife to use your PIN.

If you want full card protection in future,you need to either open a joint account where you both have a card or disallow your wife from what was fraudulent use of your card.

Tammboy

I have an update. So I went back to easirent and had them print out the receipt and the terms and conditions. However, they had no recollection of the spot check form - it hadn't been 'applied' to the account. Even when the guy looked through all the hard copies for the date, he couldn't find it.

My wife was never given a copy of the spot check form even though she admits she thinks it was carried out. Presumably therefore, given Easirent have no proof that the damage was caused by us, they have no leg to stand on?

Tammboy

Ps I also disagree with this debate about my wife using the card. There is actually a 2nd card on the account in her name in which pin, pan and security numbers are identical - not all cc companies issue 2nd cards in this way but RBS certainly do.

Tammboy

Pps easirent clearly didn't do everything by the book because they retained both copies of the spot-check form.

[Deleted User]

Tammboy wrote: »

I also disagree with this debate about my wife using the card. There is actually a 2nd card on the account in her name in which pin, pan and security numbers are identical

Did she use your card or not? The magnetic strip on the back of the card would identify which one was used. It doesn't matter if both cards have the same PIN, since you can set this up yourself.

I also think you contradict yourself; why did you earlier state that you had complained to the Bank that the card was used without permission?

This is beginning to stretch credulity.

naedanger

Tammboy wrote: »

I have an update. So I went back to easirent and had them print out the receipt and the terms and conditions. However, they had no recollection of the spot check form - it hadn't been 'applied' to the account. Even when the guy looked through all the hard copies for the date, he couldn't find it.

My wife was never given a copy of the spot check form even though she admits she thinks it was carried out. Presumably therefore, given Easirent have no proof that the damage was caused by us, they have no leg to stand on?

If they have no pre-inspection form then that seriously weakens their case. However I would not conclude they have "no leg to stand on", without hearing the rest of their case e.g. how clear was the damage, what do their staff say etc?

Ultimately it may be for a court to decide, which they will do based on all the evidence and on the balance of probability.

takman

If she paid the £250 damage then that in itself is admitting that she caused the damage because who would pay for damage they didn't cause?.

Also for future reference you should take photos of the car before and after the rental period, especially of any damages. Also for around £20 a week you can get rental insurance that will cover any excess and any damage up to £50,000 so this is also essential in my opinion.

Did she even take pictures of the damage she is being charged for or have a detailed receipt showing what she paid for?.

If she does have proof of what damage she paid for you could request copies of previous check forms for the car to see if the damage was already their and has already been paid for.

But considering that she hasn't done anything a reasonable person would do to protect themselves from false damage accusations then I can't see you getting very far with this!.