Section 75 Protection credit card Enquiry

eco_warrior

bigadaj wrote: »

It's a bit pointless, any deposit should be minimal.

Was really just trying to answer his question on that particular point

bigadaj

eco_warrior wrote: »

Was really just trying to answer his question on that particular point

Fair enough, but whether there would be a new contract or a variation of the original contract is a debatable point, I'd think it's likely the new contract would override the old one but that would depend on how it's written.

The legal route would be both complex and long winded, not to say expensive.

I'm just trying to deal with this practically given that from what the OP has said there is an issue with the d,every and quality of service.

Sadly whoever has the money has the leverage so minimising the amount they hand over is likely to lead to a better outcome.

eskbanker

OP - you received and apparently accepted plenty of advice early in the thread along the lines of don't pay them any more money and insist they complete the job on the originally agreed terms.

However, you still seem to be leaning towards accepting the company's demands for much more money upfront, despite having major misgivings about their capabilities, and hoping that a credit card company will be able and willing to tidy up any resulting mess.

I get your desire to have the place secure and so on, but why not just write to the window company reiterating that you insist on them fulfilling their obligations under the agreed terms and giving them notice that should they fail to do so within x days they will be in breach of contract and you reserve the right to undertake whatever reasonable actions are necessary to (a) secure the property and/or (b) get the job done, at their expense?

bery_451

eco_warrior wrote: »

My colleague says making a change to the contract (such as changing the payment structure or amending the works) wouldn't nullify the first contact. She advised having mention of the 1st contract in the 2nd contract to link them together. Then if the works are not completed to your satisfaction it doesn't mean the 1st contact was fine and any works that were part of it cant be claimed under Section 75.

Ok from my understanding of this 2nd contract does not cancel out the 1st contract so 1st contract still stands?

For section 75 protection I must link 1st and 2nd contract together?

What do you mean by your last sentence of what cannot be claimed under section 75?

bigadaj

bery_451 wrote: »

Ok from my understanding of this 2nd contract does not cancel out the 1st contract so 1st contract still stands?

For section 75 protection I must link 1st and 2nd contract together?

What do you mean by your last sentence of what cannot be claimed under section 75?

Just decline their kind offer of paying them more money, there's no second contract as you haven't agreed to it and paid no money so no consideration to make it binding.

bery_451

eskbanker wrote: »

OP - you received and apparently accepted plenty of advice early in the thread along the lines of don't pay them any more money and insist they complete the job on the originally agreed terms.

However, you still seem to be leaning towards accepting the company's demands for much more money upfront, despite having major misgivings about their capabilities, and hoping that a credit card company will be able and willing to tidy up any resulting mess.

I get your desire to have the place secure and so on, but why not just write to the window company reiterating that you insist on them fulfilling their obligations under the agreed terms and giving them notice that should they fail to do so within x days they will be in breach of contract and you reserve the right to undertake whatever reasonable actions are necessary to (a) secure the property and/or (b) get the job done, at their expense?

Written to them but no reply. Ok if I get another window company in to complete the job then I can claim these new costs off section 75 or via the legal route with the window company?

jonesMUFCforever

You are better off liaising with the credit card direct. (BEFORE AGREEING ANYTHING).
You will need the permission of the card lender before claiming anything.

bery_451

Hi just a quick question:

I hear stories of section 75 claims being refused outright by card companies as they don't want to pay up. They find any excuse not to pay so what precautions I must take to make my section 75 claim successful 1st time without resorting to appeals afterwards?

Or shall I go for a dispute which I believe is safer to get monies back as the card company doesnt pay out of its own pocket for this.

What circumstances and eligibility is required for a dispute and section 75? I believe they are both different.

Do I qualify for a dispute claim instead of section 75 claim or it has to be section 75 claim?

bery_451

Coming back here anyone can advise.

chattychappy

bery_451 wrote: »

Or shall I go for a dispute which I believe is safer to get monies back as the card company doesnt pay out of its own pocket for this.

I can only assume you are talking about chargeback. There are others on this site who have more knowledge about the technicalities of chargeback, but I believe it is not uncommon for CCs to "take you word for it", refund you, but when the merchant disputes, you get rebilled. Chargeback is not backed by the law - it's a scheme operated by the CC/debit card networks. There is some "soft law" backing in that the FOS has said that given the availability of the scheme, it would be unfair if a CC didn't use it to assist a cardholder where appropriate.

In the case of S75, this is governed by statute and law simply makes CCs jointly and severally liable in the case of breach of contract or misrep. It doesn't lay down any procedure or process you must go through.

As with any party making a claim on another, it's not uncommon for the defending party to either ignore the claim or come up with various reasons not to pay out. CCs lay down their own procedure for considering claims against them - including a requirement to produce proof of the type and strength necessary. This is no different from a shop saying to get a refund for faulty goods it requires the original till receipt (the law doesn't specifically require production of the original receipt). Generally it's best to pay ball whilst the other party is being reasonable. But if you feel you have a good case, but can't satisfy their particular requirements you can then either go to the ombudsman or sue in the county court. In a court it will ultimately be for a judge to decide whether you have proved your case or not. The reality is that most county claims settle before you reach a hearing.