Section 75 and house insurance claim

Aylesbury_Duck

gerald2h said:

I went down both routes because it wasn’t clear whether the insurance would pay out because of the standard of the installation 

Thats's fine, but you owe the supplier now, because you've been paid twice.  That's where you stand.  Expect a letter before action as a prelude to small claims court.  If your description is accurate, you will lose.

Sandtree

Ok, there are lots of this story that is very odd...

It sounds like you had a new bathroom fitted and had issues with the fitting. You claimed on the home insurance for this and another company fixed it for you - the claim should have been declined as home insurance doesnt cover defective workmanship unless you claimed from the Legal Expenses section?

A S75 claim for both items and installation is odd given you have now got it in a working state and therefore at worst this is fraud and at best it is undue enrichment.

You now appear to being chased by the original installers which doesnt tie up with a S75 claim as that would have come from the banks pocket and so the last person that is due payment is the original installers given they've been paid by you already.

Is the above correct?
On what grounds was the insurance claim?
How long did it take your S75 claim to result in repayment?
What paperwork did you sign with the bank?

First step is to check its a S75 claim, a chargeback would mean the supplier had the moeny clawed back which would explain why they are now chasing. 

TELLIT01

I would have thought the insurance claim was to cover remediation work from the leak, and S75 for compensation / price reduction for the initial poor workmanship.  In the event that S75 made full repayment of the cost of the work, the contractor would be able to take back all the removable equipment supplied.  If that is the case, there hasn't been a double payment just payment from different sources for different things.

y3sitsm3

TELLIT01 said:

I would have thought the insurance claim was to cover remediation work from the leak, and S75 for compensation / price reduction for the initial poor workmanship.  In the event that S75 made full repayment of the cost of the work, the contractor would be able to take back all the removable equipment supplied.  If that is the case, there hasn't been a double payment just payment from different sources for different things.

It wasn't refunded under S75.

If it was the bill would have been footed by the card provider and the tradesman would have no idea about it.

It's a chargeback, and as said, the OP has no rights to the money.  They should pay it back to the tradesman and let the insurer take legal action to recover the funds if that's what they want to do.

Also, you can't get compensation for the poor workmanship if it's been rectified.  Cake and eat it too.

gerald2h

y3sitsm3 said:

TELLIT01 said:

I would have thought the insurance claim was to cover remediation work from the leak, and S75 for compensation / price reduction for the initial poor workmanship.  In the event that S75 made full repayment of the cost of the work, the contractor would be able to take back all the removable equipment supplied.  If that is the case, there hasn't been a double payment just payment from different sources for different things.

It wasn't refunded under S75.

If it was the bill would have been footed by the card provider and the tradesman would have no idea about it.

It's a chargeback, and as said, the OP has no rights to the money.  They should pay it back to the tradesman and let the insurer take legal action to recover the funds if that's what they want to do.

Also, you can't get compensation for the poor workmanship if it's been rectified.  Cake and eat it too.

It’s is a section 75 claim and also an insurance claim. Both the insurance and the Credit card company were both aware of both claims. I didn’t hid anything from either of them. In fact I used the loss adjuster report for part of the section 75 claim.  

bris

Well you can't be paid twice and might even get into serious trouble for it knowing you are trying to get two payouts.

If insurance have settled then you no longer have a loss to claim via S75.

The insurers can chase the builder to recover their costs to you but by now the Credit card should have no liability.

Aylesbury_Duck

gerald2h said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TELLIT01 said:

I would have thought the insurance claim was to cover remediation work from the leak, and S75 for compensation / price reduction for the initial poor workmanship.  In the event that S75 made full repayment of the cost of the work, the contractor would be able to take back all the removable equipment supplied.  If that is the case, there hasn't been a double payment just payment from different sources for different things.

It wasn't refunded under S75.

If it was the bill would have been footed by the card provider and the tradesman would have no idea about it.

It's a chargeback, and as said, the OP has no rights to the money.  They should pay it back to the tradesman and let the insurer take legal action to recover the funds if that's what they want to do.

Also, you can't get compensation for the poor workmanship if it's been rectified.  Cake and eat it too.

It’s is a section 75 claim and also an insurance claim. Both the insurance and the Credit card company were both aware of both claims. I didn’t hid anything from either of them. In fact I used the loss adjuster report for part of the section 75 claim.  

You may not have deliberately hidden anything from either of them, but did you make it clear to each what you were claiming for, and why?

If you want people to help, you're going to need to be clear about exactly what was claimed from each, and what was paid out from each, and for what.  At the moment, it's very vague, and all we understand is that both card provider and insurance have paid out, which sounds like a double claim.  On that basis, the threatened court action sounds reasonable.  If you want to defend it, you're going to have to present better evidence to the court than "I didn't hide anything from anybody".  The bottom line is that the supplier appears to think they're unfairly out of pocket and presumably has some evidence of that. If you want to defend court action, you'll need to explain why you don't owe them money.

born_again

gerald2h said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TELLIT01 said:

I would have thought the insurance claim was to cover remediation work from the leak, and S75 for compensation / price reduction for the initial poor workmanship.  In the event that S75 made full repayment of the cost of the work, the contractor would be able to take back all the removable equipment supplied.  If that is the case, there hasn't been a double payment just payment from different sources for different things.

It wasn't refunded under S75.

If it was the bill would have been footed by the card provider and the tradesman would have no idea about it.

It's a chargeback, and as said, the OP has no rights to the money.  They should pay it back to the tradesman and let the insurer take legal action to recover the funds if that's what they want to do.

Also, you can't get compensation for the poor workmanship if it's been rectified.  Cake and eat it too.

It’s is a section 75 claim and also an insurance claim. Both the insurance and the Credit card company were both aware of both claims. I didn’t hid anything from either of them. In fact I used the loss adjuster report for part of the section 75 claim.  

So have you signed a full & final settlement with the credit card then?
If the CC find out you have also had a payout from house ins, then expect them to want their money back as well.

y3sitsm3

gerald2h said:

y3sitsm3 said:

TELLIT01 said:

I would have thought the insurance claim was to cover remediation work from the leak, and S75 for compensation / price reduction for the initial poor workmanship.  In the event that S75 made full repayment of the cost of the work, the contractor would be able to take back all the removable equipment supplied.  If that is the case, there hasn't been a double payment just payment from different sources for different things.

It wasn't refunded under S75.

If it was the bill would have been footed by the card provider and the tradesman would have no idea about it.

It's a chargeback, and as said, the OP has no rights to the money.  They should pay it back to the tradesman and let the insurer take legal action to recover the funds if that's what they want to do.

Also, you can't get compensation for the poor workmanship if it's been rectified.  Cake and eat it too.

It’s is a section 75 claim and also an insurance claim. Both the insurance and the Credit card company were both aware of both claims. I didn’t hid anything from either of them. In fact I used the loss adjuster report for part of the section 75 claim.  

The bank will have processed it as a chargeback if that route is available.

If the  seller knows about it, it was done as a chargeback.

gerald2h

Thank you for your telephone call this afternoon.

 

I affirm that you informed Sarah Dillon (LV=) on 23rd February that you had initiated a S.75 claim with your credit card provider.  You & I briefly discussed this during our telephone conversation on 25th February, and I informed you that as far as I was aware at that time that your S.75 claim would not prejudice LV=’s recovery claim (and vice-versa).  It was not until 10th December that BLM informed me otherwise.