Section 75 claim

Katykat

We bought garden furniture worth £520 on a credit card. It was rattan chairs which the company said would last 20+ years but the guarantee was 1 year.After 1 summer, the coated frame started to rust. The company wouldn’t accept responsibility despite us claiming that the furniture should be fit for purpose. So we turned to the credit card company claiming under section 75. After 6 weeks, they have written to us asking us to provide a report from a VAT. registered company with all that is wrong and how much it would cost to repair. Firstly, should we be liable for the cost of this report? And next, it would be impossible to repair it as it is the whole frame of 2 sofas, 2 chairs and a stool. Where do we stand?

Ebe_Scrooge

Katykat wrote: »

Where do we stand?

In the garden, I would have thought, seeing as how your chairs are no good :-)

eskbanker

Credit card companies will often insist that claims like this are accompanied by an independent expert report, as the card company isn't in a position to decide on the merits of the claim without such input, i.e. they can't just take your word for it.

However, the cost of the report can be added to the claim.

In terms of repair/replace/refund, your options will largely be dictated by the findings of the company you commission to inspect the furniture, although the Consumer Rights Act is the overarching legislation you'll ultimately be referring to....

whitepaper

Katykat wrote: »

We bought garden furniture worth £520 on a credit card. It was rattan chairs which the company said would last 20+ years but the guarantee was 1 year.After 1 summer, the coated frame started to rust. The company wouldn’t accept responsibility despite us claiming that the furniture should be fit for purpose. So we turned to the credit card company claiming under section 75. After 6 weeks, they have written to us asking us to provide a report from a VAT. registered company with all that is wrong and how much it would cost to repair. Firstly, should we be liable for the cost of this report? And next, it would be impossible to repair it as it is the whole frame of 2 sofas, 2 chairs and a stool. Where do we stand?

This thread would probably be better of on the Consumer Rights board

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=173

This matter has nothing to do with credit cards, save that you purchased the item using a credit card.

Not sure why you are attempting to pursue the credit card company. The retailer has already responded to your complaint and the credit card won't act as judge, jury and exectutioner in your complaint against the retailer.
(You could rely upon the creditor if the matter was proved in your favour and the retailer was unable to pay)

What proof do you need?

When goods are faulty, if you return them within six months, then it's up to the shop to prove they weren't faulty when you bought them. After this, the burden of proof shifts and it's up to you to prove they were faulty when you bought them.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

eddddy

Katykat wrote: »

... And next, it would be impossible to repair it as it is the whole frame of 2 sofas, 2 chairs and a stool. Where do we stand?

So the report will presumably say that.

So if the report confirms that the goods were not of 'satisfactory quality' or not 'fit for purpose' when you bought them', and cannot be repaired, then you should get a pro-rata refund.

The pro-rata will be based on the expected reasonable life-span of the goods.

e.g. If furniture of the type you bought should normally last 5 years - you should get an 80% refund, because you've only got 1 year of usage from it.

(Presumably there are no care instructions that you've failed to follow - like covering the furniture in winter, or bringing it indoors in winter etc)

eddddy

whitepaper wrote: »

Not sure why you are attempting to pursue the credit card company. The retailer has already responded to your complaint and the credit card won't act as judge, jury and exectutioner in your complaint against the retailer.
(You could rely upon the creditor if the matter was proved in your favour and the retailer was unable to pay)

That's incorrect.

You need to read-up on section 75 of the consumer credit act.

Here's a start: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the retailer or trader.

This means it is just as responsible as the retailer or trader for the goods or service supplied, allowing you to also put your claim to the credit card company.

You don't have to reach a stalemate with the retailer or trader before you can contact your credit card provider - you can make a claim to both the retailer and credit card provider simultaneously, although you can't recover your losses from both.

....

whitepaper

eddddy wrote: »

That's incorrect.

You need to read-up on section 75 of the consumer credit act.

Here's a start: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the retailer or trader.

This means it is just as responsible as the retailer or trader for the goods or service supplied, allowing you to also put your claim to the credit card company.

You don't have to reach a stalemate with the retailer or trader before you can contact your credit card provider - you can make a claim to both the retailer and credit card provider simultaneously, although you can't recover your losses from both.

....

What's incorrect? :huh:

Even what you quote says "the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the retailer or trader.", not that the credit card company will act as "judge, jury and exectutioner in your complaint against the retailer"

I suggest you read my post again .... very carefully

whitepaper

Just for the record, this is what S75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 actually says:

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(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.

...

(5)In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.

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

eddddy

whitepaper wrote: »

Just for the record, this is what S75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 actually says:

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

Yep - I've read the legislation and I understand it.

Unfortunately, your posts suggest that you don't understand it, so you've offered incorrect advice.

(These threads remain for many years, and many people might read them, so I think it's important to highlight advice that is clearly incorrect.)

However, the advice given by eskbanker is good.

whitepaper

eddddy wrote: »

Yep - I've read the legislation and I understand it.

Unfortunately, your posts suggest that you don't understand it, so you've offered incorrect advice.

(These threads remain for many years, and many people might read them, so I think it's important to highlight advice that is clearly incorrect.)

....

You may well have read the legislation, especially after I posted it for you, but I suspect you do not understand it if you suggest I don't

I too think it's important to highlight advice that is clearly incorrect, but so far you have failed to indicate what part of my post you believe is incorrect, or more particularly why.

eco_warrior

whitepaper wrote: »

You may well have read the legislation, especially after I posted it for you, but I suspect you do not understand it if you suggest I don't

I too think it's important to highlight advice that is clearly incorrect, but so far you have failed to indicate what part of my post you believe is incorrect, or more particularly why.

Why did you say its nothing to do with Credit Cards when the customer is asking about a Section 75 claim?


And why aren't you sure why the OP is going to his credit card provider when he has already tried to resolve with the merchant and they have said they wont help?