We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Fairly unique one... buying a car using my mum's credit card?!
LeeTheRed96
Posts: 3 Newbie
in Credit cards
Okay, not only is it my first post, it also sounds like I live at home with my mum... only one of those is true!
I'm buying a car tomorrow and was just told about Section 75 protection when you pay the deposit (or Ben a portion of the amount) on a credit card.
I'm a cash buyer, but a credit card is something I don't personally have, with no time to be able to apply and receive one in time.
However, my mum does and would be happy for me to use it for the deposit so I could get the added cover.
Now, the real question.... Would I/she be covered under the act if the car was registered in my name?
All help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance folks!
I'm buying a car tomorrow and was just told about Section 75 protection when you pay the deposit (or Ben a portion of the amount) on a credit card.
I'm a cash buyer, but a credit card is something I don't personally have, with no time to be able to apply and receive one in time.
However, my mum does and would be happy for me to use it for the deposit so I could get the added cover.
Now, the real question.... Would I/she be covered under the act if the car was registered in my name?
All help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance folks!
0
Comments
-
If the car is bought on her card but is nothing to do with her then no, unfortunately not, the S75 cover is a direct relationship between the card holder and the service
What's not covered by Section 75?
As always with these things, a few exceptions escape the safety net. First is anything to do with the purchase of land - this is controlled by regulation from the Financial Conduct Authority. But there's other purchases that escape the safety net too...
Goods/services paid for by a secondary cardholder
If you have an additional card for a partner, child or friend and this card is used to make a payment for a item you subsequently need to claim for, you'll need to show the item/service provides some benefit to the primary cardholder to be covered.
So if it was a family car or gift for the main cardholder, this is likely to be OK. But a solo flight for the additional cardholder wouldn't be.
This isn't technically written into the legislation, but is based on a ruling (62/02) by the Financial Ombudsman in 2007.
From MSE guideSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thank you for the reply!
Whilst not the answer I was hoping for, very much appreciated!0 -
It's not really an additional cardholder issue. But yep, you're not covered if you are making the purchase and your mother is paying for some of it on her card.
The only way around this would be if your mother buys the car (you could give her cash for the balance). Later she could then transfer it to you. Obviously this could raise other issues but it would fix the S75 matter.0 -
chattychappy wrote: »It's not really an additional cardholder issue. But yep, you're not covered if you are making the purchase and your mother is paying for some of it on her card.
The only way around this would be if your mother buys the car (you could give her cash for the balance). Later she could then transfer it to you. Obviously this could raise other issues but it would fix the S75 matter.
It was quicker to copy and paste the thing than write it all out but the principle is the same - if the car is for the daughter only then the s75 protection is not there.
I am not sure if the mother is insured and makes occasional use whether that would work?Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
If the car is bought on her card but is nothing to do with her then no, unfortunately not, the S75 cover is a direct relationship between the card holder and the service
What's not covered by Section 75?
As always with these things, a few exceptions escape the safety net. First is anything to do with the purchase of land - this is controlled by regulation from the Financial Conduct Authority. But there's other purchases that escape the safety net too...
Goods/services paid for by a secondary cardholder
If you have an additional card for a partner, child or friend and this card is used to make a payment for a item you subsequently need to claim for, you'll need to show the item/service provides some benefit to the primary cardholder to be covered.
So if it was a family car or gift for the main cardholder, this is likely to be OK. But a solo flight for the additional cardholder wouldn't be.
This isn't technically written into the legislation, but is based on a ruling (62/02) by the Financial Ombudsman in 2007.
From MSE guide
what has a secondary cardholder got to do with anything.
This is being bought / paying a deposit with the main card holders card.
the op's mum is quite able to legitimately buy / pay a deposit with her credit card to get s75 protection.
who or where the balance comes from is neither here nor there0 -
chattychappy wrote: »It's not really an additional cardholder issue. But yep, you're not covered if you are making the purchase and your mother is paying for some of it on her card.
The only way around this would be if your mother buys the car (you could give her cash for the balance). Later she could then transfer it to you. Obviously this could raise other issues but it would fix the S75 matter.
what has transferring got to do with anything?
the 'owner' and registered keeper are two entirely different things.
the op's mum is quite able to legitimately buy / pay a deposit with her credit card to get s75 protection.
who the registered keeper of the car and the owner of the car are, are entirely separate issues and wont cause any claims under s75 to be rejected in any way shape or form.0 -
what has transferring got to do with anything?
the 'owner' and registered keeper are two entirely different things.
the op's mum is quite able to legitimately buy / pay a deposit with her credit card to get s75 protection.
who the registered keeper of the car and the owner of the car are, are entirely separate issues and wont cause any claims under s75 to be rejected in any way shape or form.
It has everything to do with it.
For S75 to apply, the cardholder must be in contract with the car dealer. The OP's mother must BUY the car and put at least some of the cost onto the CC. If the OP's mother BUYS the car, then the OP's mother will own it.
Since the OP wishes to own the car, the only way to achieve this is for ownership to be transferred after the event from the OP's mother to the OP.
Registered keeper is nothing to do with it - and I never mentioned that.0 -
what has a secondary cardholder got to do with anything.
This is being bought / paying a deposit with the main card holders card.
the op's mum is quite able to legitimately buy / pay a deposit with her credit card to get s75 protection.
who or where the balance comes from is neither here nor there
I was simply quoting the MSE guide as I stated in the previous post which you ignored to quote this one. S75 covers the card holder and any purchases they make for themselves. A mum putting a deposit on a card for a car she was going to use or was going to use 50/50 with a child gets protection, if the car is 100% for the child (and especially if they do not live together) then there is no S75 coverSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
1. Get your mum to order a CC in your name then cut it up after transaction.
And/or
2. Get mum's name on car insurance then not only will it most likely be cheaper but proves her use of vehicle whether she uses or not.0 -
Hi everybody, and thank you all for the replies. Appreciate the insight.
For clarity, I'm 35 and own my own home, the mere suggestion of using my mums credit card was a simple solution as I simply don't have one. I've never wanted one, although did use one until recently when my wife passed away and it was closed (given she was the main cardholder and they aren't transferable).
I've decided against using her card. Given that any organisation (be it insurance etc) will always do whatever they can to avoid paying out, this seems like a no brainer that they would not cover.
Just have to run the gauntlet!
All advice much appreciated!1
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards