Nationwide Credit Cards - problems getting a refund under Section 75

[Deleted User]

jsharris99 said:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/
This google'd link seems to show one poor lady who also had a problem with her credit card company and after getting it referred to the financial ombudsman she got even more money from the credit card company including interest at 8% and payment for delays than the original amount she was claiming for. Thanks for your advice but I'd rather believe Amalia and Martin Lewis and the CAB.

FYI the FOS ruling on interest is 8% simple (not compound) interest per year in cases where there is a delay, standard rule (15% for really old cases in the 90s), it's your compensation for delays. It is also taxable

jsharris99

I didn't know that interest was taxable either. Make sense though. Its income.
I'll have to make do with the new tyres instead. :-) Seems you guys know a lot.

born_again

jsharris99 said:

Good news ! I got the replacement cost refunded from the Manufacturer. So yes, the tyres were indeed faulty. It was a full refund of the replacement cost rather than the original price, which was higher. It might have been the fact I bought the replacement tyres from the same manufacturer too. I was making a claim because the tyre walls were perishing - something I've only ever seen on OLD OLD tyres. (> 10 years not 4-6 years old tyres). It was a new 'type' of tyre from that company when I bought them and I've looked after them by only parking north facing so the tyres would only get a small amount of UV that way (I also have trees that produce shade for the summer months) and in the afternoon it would be completely in shade. I was doing about 1-2 k per year each year. So being lightly used, but still being used nonetheless, parking in the right way to minimise UV exposure and they still deteriorated badly.  I'm very grateful to the manufacturer for their refund.

What concerns me was the attitude of the credit card company and the claim under section 75. The section 75 comes under Consumer Credit Act. I also make you all aware how they are advertising recently 'it matters how you pay' on television. It was suggested by Martin Lewis that Section 75 applies to goods where the vendor refuses to refund under the Consumer Rights Act and makes the credit card company JUST AS LIABLE for faulty goods which do not last. Tyres have usage just the same as your television or toaster would. Would you really accept only a partial refund for a faulty toaster or tv ? After all your toaster is affected by internal temperature / number of slices of bread / cleaning methods / accumulation of bread crumbs. Your tv is affected by the warmth of the environment / dust / sunlight / using too much volume / too much brightness / contrast. There was plenty of wear left on the front tyres. Perhaps you're suggesting I should put a UV cover on my tyres when I'm not using the car or warm them up before I drive, like in formula 1 racing pits? Making excuses is easy. 

The fact the credit card company refused to detail their calculation shows that they are being deceptive and avoiding their responsibilities under the law. This is a future warning to you all that your credit card company may just try to not pay a full refund under section 75 for your faulty toaster / tv etc and try and fob YOU off too ! Remember its not just about tyres its about responsibilities under the law and faulty goods.

S75 relies on breech of contract or Misrepresentation.

There are many factors that affect tyres that have been listed. 
If the manufacture has refunded you as they were faulty, then fine, that is up to them. But the retailer has not refunded you, just the same as the CC co has not refunded you.
Nationwide would not refund you till they had proof of any fault anyway.

Also tyres can be sat for years before they are fitted to cars. So your estimated 4-6 for the purchase could mean if the tyres were manufactured 3 to 4 years before. Making them easily over 10 years old.

Given  Nationwide gave you some figures. Then you should know exactly when they were purchased as you would have had to have the date of purchase. So quite why a 2 year period is quoted for the purchase is odd to say the least.