CCA Section 75 protection over £30k - 2 transactions?

Andyhhh

Hi Folks,


I'm looking at purchasing a £1,000 deposit on a large Orangery that is going to cost around £58,000 - therefore exceeding the Section 75 protection limit of £30,000.



Would I be covered if I asked for the invoice to be split and paid 2x deposits, such as the doors, windows, roof lantern in one invoice and the rest of the build on another invoice - meaning I have two invoices both under £30,000 and therefore covered by the Section 75 protection?


Many thanks in advance


Andy

[Deleted User]

No. It is the total item value which matters.

You're unlikely to be able to argue that they are distinct purchases.

Bermonia

Should you ever need to rely on a claim it would be clear what your intention was and as such would not need to be honoured as contrary to the spirit of the protection in place.

Terry_Towelling

Agree about the lack of S75 coverage in this instance.

However, if you were able to split the work (as opposed to the bill) into smaller chunks under different contracts, or with different suppliers, you might be able to swing something.

For example, if you were to pay a contractor £30K to build the structure and then pay someone else (or even the same person) £28K under a different contractual arrangement to fit it out and furnish it, then you might qualify.

Just an idea.

Exodi

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

if you were able to split the work (as opposed to the bill) into smaller chunks under different contracts, or with different suppliers, you might be able to swing something.

For example, if you were to pay a contractor £30K to build the structure and then pay someone else (or even the same person) £28K under a different contractual arrangement to fit it out and furnish it, then you might qualify.

Just an idea.

w......what? That's exactly what the OP suggested?

Andyhhh wrote: »

Would I be covered if I asked for the invoice to be split and paid 2x deposits, such as the doors, windows, roof lantern in one invoice and the rest of the build on another invoice - meaning I have two invoices both under £30,000 and therefore covered by the Section 75 protection?

And your whimsical guesswork is extremely dangerous should they follow it and it subsequently being wrong.

eddddy

The legislation is very clear that the £30k limit applies to a single item (not a single contract or single supplier).

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

(b)so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000

link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

And the Financial Ombudsman repeats this:

financial limits

Section 75 sets a number of financial limits for the transactions it covers. It does not apply to a claim which relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price of £100 or less, or more than £30,000.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html

So maybe make sure that the contract is for "Orangery Components Items", with items having a price of between £100 and £30k.

I suspect that the bank would fight any s75 claim very hard, but listing separate items probably improves your chances.

And, FWIW, the UK Cards Association (as was) confirms the 'single item rule' from a slightly different viewpoint:

If you buy individual items that do not cost over £100, for example if you buy a jacket for £80 and matching trousers for £40. However, if you buy them as a suit for £120 this may constitute a single item and you are covered.

http://www.theukcardsassociation.org.uk/wm_documents/Section_75_v3.pdf

Terry_Towelling

Exodi wrote: »

w......what? That's exactly what the OP suggested?

And your whimsical guesswork is extremely dangerous should they follow it and it subsequently being wrong.

No it isn't. OP suggested splitting the invoice, not the contract. I've suggested having more than one contract and/or supplier.

Please let me know how you would view the following:-

Ask a carpet supplier to supply and fit enough carpet to fully re-carpet your mansion. They quote £32K - S75 cover? No.

However, you decide that's too much anyway and ask them to supply only and you'll source your own fitters. They supply for £20K and you find your own fitters for whatever amount you can. All paid by card. S75 cover? Yes - although your logic means you will disagree with my dangerous whimsy.

Terry_Towelling

eddddy wrote: »

The legislation is very clear that the £30k limit applies to a single item (not a single contract or single supplier).

So maybe make sure that the contract is for "Orangery Components Items", with items having a price of between £100 and £30k.

I suspect that the bank would fight any s75 claim very hard, but listing separate items probably improves your chances.

And, FWIW, the UK Cards Association (as was) confirms the 'single item rule' from a slightly different viewpoint:

This also makes things a little more 'open'. Imagine having a kitchen supplied and fitted complete with appliances - total cost £40K. Everything is itemised on the bill, with the appliance-fitting itemised as £150. One of the appliances was incorrectly wired by a contractor and caused a fire that burned down your whole house. S75 cover for the breach of contract by incorrect fitting plus consequential loss for the total loss of your house? Yes or No? Based on the total contract price, no, but based on the itemised cost, yes!

A bad example maybe, because other legislation could be invoked but for the purpose of the S75 argument...(Apologies to Exodi for more whimsy).

Terry_Towelling

Exodi wrote: »

w......what? That's exactly what the OP suggested?

And your whimsical guesswork is extremely dangerous should they follow it and it subsequently being wrong.

Sorry, Exodi, but this has really niggled me, so I'm coming back for another go. I hope you will have the decency to respond.

I notice you have not actually provided anything constructive to the debate, just poured scorn on my contribution. Fair enough, (and I probably deserve it more often than not) but you really haven't thought through your objection, have you? And, before you say anything, yes, I am guilty of doing the same.

So, if OP has no S75 cover at the moment and my suggestion proves to be fallacy, they will still have no S75 cover. Ergo, no danger to OP.

If OP does have S75 cover as it stands, then following my suggestion will make absolutely no difference and they would still have S75 cover. Ergo, no danger to OP.

If, however, OP has no S75 cover at the moment and following my suggestion means they do have S75 cover then they will have gained. Ergo, no danger to OP but the potential for significant benefit instead.

Where is the danger in my suggestion?

Exodi

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Sorry, Exodi, but this has really niggled me, so I'm coming back for another go. I hope you will have the decency to respond.

Oh wow three consecutive responses just for me, I'm flattered.

Andyhhh wrote: »

Would I be covered if I asked for the invoice to be split and paid 2x deposits, such as the doors, windows, roof lantern in one invoice and the rest of the build on another invoice - meaning I have two invoices both under £30,000 and therefore covered by the Section 75 protection?

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

if you were to pay a contractor £30K to build the structure and then pay someone else (or even the same person) £28K under a different contractual arrangement to fit it out and furnish it, then you might qualify.

My reasons for objecting to this original post was a) your suggestions of 'paying the same person' is restating the OP's dilemma. b) your advice being 'you might qualify' is not only of no use to the OP (as I'd imagine their reasons for posting on MSE was to get assurances) but also potentially dangerous should you be wrong.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

No it isn't. OP suggested splitting the invoice, not the contract. I've suggested having more than one contract and/or supplier..

Whilst I enjoyed your fanciful hypotheticals; they're not specific/relevant to the OP's situation. Unless your suggestion was for the OP to instead request the Orangery contractor only provide the raw materials and then find a third party willing to try to bang them all together? Plus, again, you mentioned using the same person which is just splitting the invoice...

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

I notice you have not actually provided anything constructive to the debate, just poured scorn on my contribution.

With all respect, your suggestions that 'might' qualify are just as constructive to the debate and it's not logical to suggest dissuading people to take advice (for various reasons) isn't contributing.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

you really haven't thought through your objection, have you? And, before you say anything, yes, I am guilty of doing the same.

Perfect technique, thinly veiled insult followed with empathy. 10/10 for effort. Little need to respond to comments like this in a sensible debate...

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

So, if OP has no S75 cover at the moment and my suggestion proves to be fallacy, they will still have no S75 cover. Ergo, no danger to OP.

If OP does have S75 cover as it stands, then following my suggestion will make absolutely no difference and they would still have S75 cover. Ergo, no danger to OP.

If, however, OP has no S75 cover at the moment and following my suggestion means they do have S75 cover then they will have gained. Ergo, no danger to OP but the potential for significant benefit instead.

Where is the danger in my suggestion?

This could definitely be put into one sentence but I appreciate it's to drive your point home. The flaw being that the OP has come to this forum to potentially avoid a situation where they have no cover. If they were to forego alternative suggestions in favour of your 'might qualify' proposition (that I personally don't think is possible regardless) then they could find themselves in a bad situation without a paddle off the back of your guesswork.

We need to constantly remind ourselves that we are giving advice to real people, and 'probably' just doesn't cut it. The OP's not an idiot, they came to the same deduction of splitting the work as you, but they're after assurances which evidently me nor you can provide.

chattychappy

And we haven't even started on s75A yet....
:D:D