Section 75 and the lack of protection!

Bubble2012

Good Evening

So I purchased a golfing membership as a gift for a relative for a milestone birthday to the tune of £700. The golf club subsequently went bust and I assumed I would be protected under Section 75. It seems not.
Apparently if the purchase is a gift then you have absolutely no protection whatsoever. Because their is no "direct link" between me and the credit card company and the contract at the golf club then I simply have to kiss £700 goodbye.
If the membership purchased was in my name then they say they would have paid out without question.

How can this be right? I purchased a gift for a relative and suddenly I don't get the same level of protection?

Has anyone else been in this situation?

Thanks in advance!
Diane

PeacefulWaters

It's the way the legislation is written. That's how it's right.

But probably best not to repeal it.

meer53

The gift was for someone else so why would you expect to be protected ?

Superscrooge

I agree it does seem unfair but as mentioned previously, it's the way the legislation is written that makes it likely any claim would fail.

The only faint glimmer of hope I can see is something mentioned in the MSE guide to S75. I've pasted the relevant bit below

If the credit card firm turns you down, you can go to the Ombudsman, not court.
This is an important difference. First the Financial Ombudsman Service is free, while even in the small claims court you pay a fee, which is only returned if you win.
More importantly, the court only looks at the law, while the Ombudsman looks at:

The law, or
Standard industry practice, or
Whether you've been treated fairly and reasonably
The last one especially gives you extra hope if your case falls foul of the letter of the law, but your treatment hasn’t been right.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases#exceptions

You have nothing to lose by approaching the ombudsman and arguing you haven't been treated fairly. But I suspect any claim would probably be rejected.

bris

There is no glimmer of hope, S75 does not cover gifts.

MEM62

Bubble2012 wrote: »

How can this be right?

Because those are the terms under which S75 operates. There is no right or wrong about it - the protection has limitations. It is not 'compensation under any circumstances'.

tripled

How long ago did you purchase it? You could try a chargeback.

chattychappy

S75 makes no reference to gifts. S75 simply requires a transaction to involve the cardholder, merchant and lender.

Gifts can be covered. It depends.

If the relative went to join the golf club and the OP paid on her CC, then clearly no S75 protection. The relative is contracting with the club, and it is the OP who has the contract with the lender. There is no direct link between the CC and the relative.

It comes down to the terms of the gift membership. There must have been some sort of contract between the OP and the golf club when she bought the membership. If it said something like "12 months golf for your chosen friend", then I don't see why S75 wouldn't cover it. There might be an argument that although S75 covers the situation, the OP hasn't suffered a loss - but that's not what they are saying (yet).

It is true that the relative, by accepting the gift, enters a contract with the club. But that's not to say that the OP isn't also in a contract with the club.

agrinnall

Bubble2012 wrote: »

I simply have to kiss £700 goodbye.

Not really, you are now a creditor of the golf club. In many liquidation cases creditors get very little, but for a golf club their major asset is usually the land, so there's a chance that it will sell for a significant amount and you'll get some of your money back.

Although if it's the golf club up the road from me that has closed down so that they can sell it to a developer who is trying to build 1000 new homes on the land (reduced by a huge 5% to 950 in their second attempt following protests) then you've got a fight on your hands I'm afraid.