Section 75 claim

18cc

In my view, and it is only my view, you have much stronger rights than you think.

1. you are not obliged to exhaust all possible avenues of complaint with the supplier. Indeed, you can claim just against the CC without even getting involved with the supplier.

2. you don't need a report. It's either rusty or it's not - a photo will show this.

3. You don't have to return the chairs yourself. If the supplier wants the chairs back they will have to arrange a courier at their cost.

4. Your way forward is to write a letter of complaint to the CC company. Tell them if they want a report you are happy to make the furniture available to anyone they choose to send. If the CC company won't pay you then ask for a deadlock letter and complain to the FOS.

I refer to a similar (but not identical) situation here (see 86/08 - dinner service)

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm

whitepaper

18cc wrote: »

In my view, and it is only my view, you have much stronger rights than you think.

1. you are not obliged to exhaust all possible avenues of complaint with the supplier. Indeed, you can claim just against the CC without even getting involved with the supplier.

2. you don't need a report. It's either rusty or it's not - a photo will show this.

3. You don't have to return the chairs yourself. If the supplier wants the chairs back they will have to arrange a courier at their cost.

4. Your way forward is to write a letter of complaint to the CC company. Tell them if they want a report you are happy to make the furniture available to anyone they choose to send. If the CC company won't pay you then ask for a deadlock letter and complain to the FOS.

I refer to a similar (but not identical) situation here (see 86/08 - dinner service)

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm

The significant difference being, of course, that the supplier in that case did not dispute the fault with the product sold

... and presumably the complainant lodged the complaint within 6 months of purchase. Even if not, the nature of that particular complaint meant the defect was obviously there at the time of purchase.

18cc

Yes all agreed - not an exact match - but the similarity is faulty goods bought on credit. The main thing is that this was a CREDIT transaction and you have a lot of rights when buying on credit. The goods have got to be fit for purpose - how long would a reasonable person expect chairs like this to last. So £520 and a 20 yr guarantee and they rust after one summer? Clear case of faulty goods bought on credit. The CC company has the exact same liability as the retailer. Complain to the CC company and then FOS.

MEM62

18cc wrote: »

So £520 and a 20 yr guarantee and they rust after one summer?

Nope. The guarantee was for one year and the goods are out of the warranty period.

eco_warrior

18cc wrote: »

In my view, and it is only my view, you have much stronger rights than you think.

1. you are not obliged to exhaust all possible avenues of complaint with the supplier. Indeed, you can claim just against the CC without even getting involved with the supplier.

2. you don't need a report. It's either rusty or it's not - a photo will show this.

3. You don't have to return the chairs yourself. If the supplier wants the chairs back they will have to arrange a courier at their cost.

4. Your way forward is to write a letter of complaint to the CC company. Tell them if they want a report you are happy to make the furniture available to anyone they choose to send. If the CC company won't pay you then ask for a deadlock letter and complain to the FOS.

I refer to a similar (but not identical) situation here (see 86/08 - dinner service)

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/86/86-consumer-credit.htm

Can’t say I agree with wholly with point 1 and or at all with point 2.

I think it’s only fair the customer should try and resolve things with the merchant. People going directly to the credit card provider first are in the extreme minority in my experience. I can’t recall the last time I even heard of it happening.

Regarding a report, the customer should be expected to prove there is a breach of contract, otherwise the s75 process would open to false claims. Just my thoughts on it. Also, a picture could be of any furniture and not those purchased by the claimant.

eskbanker

Don't know much about rattan but I should think that it would be possible to fashion a pretty substantial range of garden furniture from all the straw men put forward in this thread so far....

18cc

hi eco

from the fos webpage..

re point 1:

. In most of the cases we see, the consumer will have complained initially to the supplier - because this is usually the quickest way to get things put right. But the law does not require the consumer to pursue the supplier first, for section 75 to apply.

eco_warrior

18cc wrote: »

hi eco

from the fos webpage..

re point 1:

. In most of the cases we see, the consumer will have complained initially to the supplier - because this is usually the quickest way to get things put right. But the law does not require the consumer to pursue the supplier first, for section 75 to apply.

Can’t say I’ve seen this happen in practice.

Banks will insist on customers trying to resolve things and then will most likely try themselves before considering paying out.

chattychappy

eco_warrior wrote: »

Can’t say I’ve seen this happen in practice.

Banks will insist on customers trying to resolve things and then will most likely try themselves before considering paying out

(emphasis added)

They have no right to "insist", as noted in the FOS's ruling 86/08 on the link provided:

Under section 75, she could seek redress from the supplier of either the goods or the credit. We thought Miss V had taken reasonable steps to try to resolve matters with the supplier. Despite what the card provider appeared to believe, however, she was not obliged to have done this (emphasis added)

CCs often put up barriers that are unsupported by law. Eg in one of those rulings, the CC claimed that S75 covered only written misrepresentations. In the past, CCs insisted that CPAs could only be cancelled via the vendor (ignoring the Payment Services Regs). They ignored insurance selling rules (hence the PPI issue) and they are imposed illegal penalties, until the OFT intervened and £12 became a defacto cap.

S75 is unfair on CCs, in my opinion, but the law is the law. Nobody forces anybody into the lending business. CCs have a good track record of creating procedures/processes that are a legal nonsense.

Terry_Towelling

I would agree that it is not a legal requirement for the cardholder to try to resolve matters with the (solvent) retailer before attempting to make a S75 claim from the card issuer (how magnanimous of me:)) but similarly, surely the card issuer does not have to accept that there is a liability under the terms of S75 unless a court of law says there is.

In practice I imagine FOS would probably take a dim view of an issuer refusing a claim when it is reasonable to believe it would be upheld in a court of law but I do not know if FOS can rule against an issuer on that basis.

There are indeed chargeback rules that the issuer cannot use unless the cardholder has first tried to resolved the issue with the (solvent) retailer, but that is a different matter.

Card issuers should pick their words carefully when asking cardholders to seek redress from the (solvent) retailer. In my opinion they should probably politely ask the cardholder to attempt to do this whilst they also review the claim. That way, the card issuer has a chance of avoiding paying out (if the retailer accepts liability) or they may be able to recover any losses through the chargeback mechanism on the back of any refusal to help from the retailer. They will also not fall foul of FOS as they are not positioning this as a legal requirement.

The odd thing in all this is that issuers must have legal departments to advise them how to handle these situations and it seems that some of them are just not very good.