Retailer gone bust whilst product under guarantee - section 75 claim?

born_again

tg99 said:

Thanks for comments. Not managed to find paperwork as yet but not even sure there was anything specific re the guarantee other than just a statement on company website saying we guarantee our products for 10 years or something of the like.

You will need a copy of the T/C for the warranty.

kaMelo

tg99 said:

Thanks for comments. Not managed to find paperwork as yet but not even sure there was anything specific re the guarantee other than just a statement on company website saying we guarantee our products for 10 years or something of the like.

Have also now spoken to liquidator. They stated that nobody was taking over any aspects of the company (including the guarantees) and therefore that there was no prospect of achieving anything as the guarantees were provided by the company itself rather than through an insurer / third party. Also suggested that section 75 would not be applicable given how long I have had the product since purchase.

Disappointing to read all that, you seem to have tried all avenues so I guess this is the end of the line.
I would suggest it's better to think "I had 8 good years" rather than "I missed out on two years." Annoying all the same though.

eskbanker

kaMelo said:

tg99 said:

Thanks for comments. Not managed to find paperwork as yet but not even sure there was anything specific re the guarantee other than just a statement on company website saying we guarantee our products for 10 years or something of the like.

Have also now spoken to liquidator. They stated that nobody was taking over any aspects of the company (including the guarantees) and therefore that there was no prospect of achieving anything as the guarantees were provided by the company itself rather than through an insurer / third party. Also suggested that section 75 would not be applicable given how long I have had the product since purchase.

Disappointing to read all that, you seem to have tried all avenues so I guess this is the end of the line.
I would suggest it's better to think "I had 8 good years" rather than "I missed out on two years." Annoying all the same though.

Just to be clear, the success or otherwise of a section 75 claim against the card company isn't affected in any way by the opinion of the liquidator, who is simply confirming that the company is defunct and that nobody is taking on the business and its liabilities.  The card company remains jointly liable for breach of contract regardless of the fate of the merchant, as long as such a breach can be demonstrated of course....

macman

Correct, but for such an S75 claim to succeed, the OP is going to need documentation to prove that he purchased the item by credit card, and proof that it has failed to perform as expected. (so in this case a  report by a technical expert that states that it's failed due to a manufacturing defect, presumably).
So far, the OP has no such documentation, and, according to his first post, is not even sure that he did use a credit card to purchase it. 
So I suspect that the chances of this going to an S75 claim are precisely zero.

eskbanker

macman said:

proof that it has failed to perform as expected. (so in this case a  report by a technical expert that states that it's failed due to a manufacturing defect, presumably).

I don't believe there's any requirement to prove a manufacturing defect here, but simply that there's a fault that would be covered by the product's ten-year guarantee, i.e. it's specifically the guarantee provision within the contract that's being breached, rather than any need to show that the item was defective at the time of purchase.

However, as you say, that's academic if there is no visible contract or if the purchase wasn't paid by credit card!

kaMelo

eskbanker said:

macman said:

proof that it has failed to perform as expected. (so in this case a  report by a technical expert that states that it's failed due to a manufacturing defect, presumably).

I don't believe there's any requirement to prove a manufacturing defect here, but simply that there's a fault that would be covered by the product's ten-year guarantee, i.e. it's specifically the guarantee provision within the contract that's being breached, rather than any need to show that the item was defective at the time of purchase.

However, as you say, that's academic if there is no visible contract or if the purchase wasn't paid by credit card!

From what you've written, correct me if I'm wrong , that as long as a warranty could be proven to both exist and apply to the fault then S75 would apply and the credit card company are on the hook to honour the said warranty.

I'm certainly no expert on Section 75 but that is a new one on me especially as any old Tom !!!!!! or Harry could draw up an exceptionally generous warranty document, promising the earth to gain a potential sale of their products. Should the vendor cease trading then the credit card company are on the hook to honour an overly generous warranty that they had no part in creating or even knew existed up until someone tries to claim on the warranty.   
As I said I'm no expert so bow to your superior knowledge on the matter but that scenario seems to stretch S75 way beyond it's intended purpose.

born_again

A copy of the warranty T/C would be needed. No copy is going to mean CC will not do anything.

eskbanker

kaMelo said:

eskbanker said:

macman said:

proof that it has failed to perform as expected. (so in this case a  report by a technical expert that states that it's failed due to a manufacturing defect, presumably).

I don't believe there's any requirement to prove a manufacturing defect here, but simply that there's a fault that would be covered by the product's ten-year guarantee, i.e. it's specifically the guarantee provision within the contract that's being breached, rather than any need to show that the item was defective at the time of purchase.

However, as you say, that's academic if there is no visible contract or if the purchase wasn't paid by credit card!

From what you've written, correct me if I'm wrong , that as long as a warranty could be proven to both exist and apply to the fault then S75 would apply and the credit card company are on the hook to honour the said warranty.

I'm certainly no expert on Section 75 but that is a new one on me especially as any old Tom !!!!!! or Harry could draw up an exceptionally generous warranty document, promising the earth to gain a potential sale of their products. Should the vendor cease trading then the credit card company are on the hook to honour an overly generous warranty that they had no part in creating or even knew existed up until someone tries to claim on the warranty.   
As I said I'm no expert so bow to your superior knowledge on the matter but that scenario seems to stretch S75 way beyond it's intended purpose.

That ship sailed ages ago, s75 has long since been stretched way beyond its intended purpose!  It was introduced in 1974 when credit card use was a fraction of today's volume, and as I understand it was largely intended to apply only to the one-off HP-style credit agreements that were more prevalent back then.

The scenario you outline could indeed happen in extreme cases, but ultimately such warranties are part of a contractual agreement between merchant and customer, so if that contract is breached then the creditor's joint liability does come into play under s75, unfair though that may seem.

Having said all that, I also don't claim to be an expert - I've never worked for a financial institution and am not a lawyer - so am just offering my interpretation and am happy to be corrected if anyone can point to definitive evidence to the contrary!

tg99

Thanks all....going to try and find the paperwork next week.

born_again

eskbanker said:

That ship sailed ages ago, s75 has long since been stretched way beyond its intended purpose!  It was introduced in 1974 when credit card use was a fraction of today's volume, and as I understand it was largely intended to apply only to the one-off HP-style credit agreements that were more prevalent back then.

The scenario you outline could indeed happen in extreme cases, but ultimately such warranties are part of a contractual agreement between merchant and customer, so if that contract is breached then the creditor's joint liability does come into play under s75, unfair though that may seem.

Having said all that, I also don't claim to be an expert - I've never worked for a financial institution and am not a lawyer - so am just offering my interpretation and am happy to be corrected if anyone can point to definitive evidence to the contrary!

Nailed it in one