Section 75

Manxman_in_exile

bris said:

Sandtree said:

MummyGreen said:

I paid the deposit of £200 by my credit card and my husband then paid the remainder by his debit card. We both drive the car but he is the registered owner and his name is on the invoice. Would I still be covered by Section 75 of the Credit Consumer Act as my husband paided on his debit card and the invoice is in his name?

If the invoice is in his name and you used your credit card then there would be no S75 protection because the Debtor (you) - Creditor (your bank) - Supplier (the car company) chain has been broken by you not being in contract with the supplier.

Not true, the card holder only  needs to benefit from the purchase. As both use the car then the claim is valid.

Out of curiosity, have you got a reliable authority or reference for that?

I know the MSE guide on s75 appears to say that so long as the cardholder receives some benefit from the purchase then there might still be a s75 claim, but the reference that they use for that proposition doesn't appear to support it.  (If anything, the reference appears to say the exact opposite)

Have you got something more tangible?

Olinda99

the card holder's name needs to be on the invoice for the car for them to be able to use S75.

Sandtree

bris said:

Sandtree said:

MummyGreen said:

I paid the deposit of £200 by my credit card and my husband then paid the remainder by his debit card. We both drive the car but he is the registered owner and his name is on the invoice. Would I still be covered by Section 75 of the Credit Consumer Act as my husband paided on his debit card and the invoice is in his name?

If the invoice is in his name and you used your credit card then there would be no S75 protection because the Debtor (you) - Creditor (your bank) - Supplier (the car company) chain has been broken by you not being in contract with the supplier.

Not true, the card holder only  needs to benefit from the purchase. As both use the car then the claim is valid.

Evidence  @bris ?

For example see https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN5103020.pdf which is exactly the same as the OP where spouses card used to buy car to benefit both but Ombudsman reject the claim on the ground the contracting party was not the card holder.

diystarter7

I've noted may thread on this site where the OP posts and never return yet regulars her argue about something that may not even be valid. EG, the car could have cost more than 30k, therefore, making the CC protection invlaid.

Another point that a poster did touch on, what is the "fault"  and proving it is a "fault" will be the next hurdle.

Someone I know that used to drive a big car since time began had to buy a smaller car, a base model. That person swore there was something wrong with the car as it was making a lot of "noise." The noise was just the car as it was smaller, a lot less insulation etc and being a cheaper and older car they do make more noise that you can hear inside the car as opposed to a much more expensive newer, bigger car.


Therefore, did you pay more than 30k and or what is the fault and did they re-look at the fault and what did they say.

Manxman_in_exile

diystarter7 said:

I've noted may thread on this site where the OP posts and never return yet regulars her argue about something that may not even be valid....

Not really.  Apart from a couple of early posters asking about the age of the car, it was clearly stated in the opening post that although the car had been paid for on the OP's credit card, it had actually been bought in the name of her husband.   

It was noted quite quickly that this should invalidate any s75 claim, so what the car cost isn't really of any relevance.