Section 75 Rejection

MorganSamage

I bought a car a few years ago that had issues that were never fixed. I was advised to finally contact Section 75 to get my money back, but they have rejected it stating the debtor-creditor-supplier chain was broken, making Section 75 protection invalid because I had bought the car through a car broker. The credit card company say that the broker misled me by telling me that I was covered by my credit card. That was an interesting statement to make, because when the broker told me that I was covered by my credit card for only paying the deposit on my credit card, I didn't think this was factual so I phoned the credit card company who told me that the information I had been given by the broker was correct, so I went ahead and bought the car. Irrespective of what the broker told me, I feel it is the bank that have misled me by telling me false information.

I have no records to prove that I made the phone call and the bank are saying that they don't record all calls, and conveniently, that is one they have no record of. If I had known that I would not be covered, then I would not have made such a large purchase through a car broker.

A long time has passed since the purchase was made (over 5 years), and I am getting closer to the 6 year deadline. The broker and also gone bust during this time.

I contacted the Financial Ombudsman, who have sided with the bank stating that buying through a car broker is not covered under Section 75.

As a test, I have contacted the bank 4 times recently, 2 written, and 2 verbal to the credit card department, asking the same question regarding buying a car through an online broker, and each time I got the same replay that I am actually covered under Section 75!

I'm sure this is just a mistake on the banks part as I believe this information is not widely known. However, the bank have now told me the same incorrect information on 5 different occasions, and they want me to pay for their mistakes!

Am I totally without hope or is there still something that I can do about this situation?

Ebe_Scrooge

I think you may be getting confused about 2 different aspects of S75 here. 

MorganSamage said:

The credit card company say that the broker misled me by telling me that I was covered by my credit card.

Firstly, it's correct that buying goods through an intermediary will break the the customer-supplier link.  This appears to be what you are saying - the broker was wrong, the bank were right.

MorganSamage said:

the broker told me that I was covered by my credit card for only paying the deposit on my credit card, I didn't think this was factual

The broker was right inasmuch as you are covered if you pay any portion of the purchase price by card - you don't need to pay the entire balance by card to be covered.  So the statement "I was covered by my credit card for only paying the deposit on my credit card" is correct as far as it goes.  But it's the fact that you went via an intermediary that's causing the issues.

k3lvc

MorganSamage said:

Am I totally without hope ?

It seems so - and even more so given the timeline involved

Do you still have the car and, if so, why was nothing resolved sooner re the issues ?

born_again

Who was the debit on the statement to?

Did the broker source the car & then charge a fee for their service, but you them paid the person or dealer selling the car direct? Or did you pay broker & they passed the funds on?

In reality the question you asked the banks, should have come back asking further questions. As it is going to depend on exactly who you are paying for the car. 


Calls are not kept for years anyway. Most work on a fixed storage space & when it's full older calls get overwritten.

No offense meant here.
Why have you waited so long to get sorted? As they can't have been serious faults if you have waited for over 5 years. This should have been done within a year. 

MorganSamage

Ebe_Scrooge
1) The broker told me I'd be covered for buying through him.
2) I wasn't aware that this type of transaction would break the chain, which is why I phoned the number on my credit card to check (after being told by the broker). The bank also told me I would be covered for this type of transaction, and they are still telling me this now (2 days ago)!
3) The only time the bank have told me anything different, is when I put in a claim.

k3lvc
Very long story, but the car has been to the garage on numerous occasions. I was told that because the issues (there are multiple) are intermittent, they are unable to fix them! I have even sent them multiple video's of the issues.

born_again
I have only ever paid/dealt with the car broker. I only found out who the dealership was when the car was delivered.
In the last few days I have asked the same question to 4 different people at the bank...
Q) I've been talking to an online car broker about a new car purchase. They want £500 deposit, and then the balance paid when the car is ready. They will source the car from a dealership and have it delivered to me. They said that if I pay the deposit with my credit card then I will be protected for the whole cost of the car. Is this true?
A) If you use your card for the deposit, you will be covered under section 75 if something goes wrong
Q) And that covers online car brokers?
A) It would be covered under any purchase £100 or over.

Unless I'm asking the wrong question, I couldn't make it any clearer!

I haven't waited so long to get this sorted, this is how long it has been going on for between me, broker, dealership, manufacturer, and finally banks :-(

born_again

TBH.
Only thing i can suggest is to complain & see what the reply is, then let FOS have a look at it.

Personally I would say as broker sourced from a dealer & was never the owner of car. (delivered direct from dealer to you) The the chain was broken. 

As I said if I got your query it provokes more questioning into the whole purchase process. But that is part of my role. Many front line call center staff will just hear +£100 & buying a car & never think about the implications of a broker being involved.

What was the purchase price?

Grumpy_chap

MorganSamage said:

I bought a car a few years ago that had issues that were never fixed. I was advised to finally contact Section 75 to get my money back, but they have rejected it stating the debtor-creditor-supplier chain was broken, making Section 75 protection invalid because I had bought the car through a car broker. The credit card company say that the broker misled me by telling me that I was covered by my credit card. That was an interesting statement to make, because when the broker told me that I was covered by my credit card for only paying the deposit on my credit card, I didn't think this was factual so I phoned the credit card company who told me that the information I had been given by the broker was correct, so I went ahead and bought the car. Irrespective of what the broker told me, I feel it is the bank that have misled me by telling me false information.

I have no records to prove that I made the phone call and the bank are saying that they don't record all calls, and conveniently, that is one they have no record of. If I had known that I would not be covered, then I would not have made such a large purchase through a car broker.

A long time has passed since the purchase was made (over 5 years), and I am getting closer to the 6 year deadline. The broker and also gone bust during this time.

I contacted the Financial Ombudsman, who have sided with the bank stating that buying through a car broker is not covered under Section 75.

As a test, I have contacted the bank 4 times recently, 2 written, and 2 verbal to the credit card department, asking the same question regarding buying a car through an online broker, and each time I got the same replay that I am actually covered under Section 75!

I'm sure this is just a mistake on the banks part as I believe this information is not widely known. However, the bank have now told me the same incorrect information on 5 different occasions, and they want me to pay for their mistakes!

Am I totally without hope or is there still something that I can do about this situation?

Much of this thread is considering the question of whether S75 could apply in the context of whether the CC could be liable to the same extent as the supplier or whether that liability will not pass to the CC because of the potentially broken chain of relationships.

If the chain was not broken, and the CC could be liable, is there a claim that would actually be eligible in the first place?  
Not every fault with a brand new car would give rise to the right to reject the car.
What was the nature of the faults that have occurred?
Has there been any other kind of resolution by the supplier / manufacturer?
Does the OP still have the car in question?

MorganSamage

born_again
£24K+

MorganSamage

Grumpy_chap
The main faults are related to electronics, camera, locking, and air conditioning.
There was never a resolution. I was asked to keep monitoring the issues which I did. When I fed the info back to them, they did nothing.
Yes, I still have the car.

k3lvc

MorganSamage said:

Grumpy_chap
The main faults are related to electronics, camera, locking, and air conditioning.
There was never a resolution. I was asked to keep monitoring the issues which I did. When I fed the info back to them, they did nothing.
Yes, I still have the car.

So was this a new car using a broker to get best price or a specialist 2nd hand car that a broker sought out specifically ?

And assuming the former were they genuine faults that warranted potential rejection of the vehicle (and if so why wasn't this done ?)  

Grumpy_chap

OP has purchased a brand new car about 5 years ago for around £24k.

Deposit was paid on CC, so the OP wonders whether S75 might apply. 
CC says no as the chain debtor-creditor-supplier is broken.
OP seeks advice whether that broken chain is correct.

Car has faults in the electrical systems and the manufacturer failed to fully resolve.
OP still has the car after 5 years.

I don't think the broken chain is important here, whether it is or is not a broken relationship chain.
S75 would only allow the OP to claim from the CC the same as if the supplier was liable under consumer rights.
It seems as though the faults were insufficient for the OP to reject the car or, in any event, the OP did not reject the car.
For S75 to apply, the OP would have needed to reject the car and that cannot be 5 years after the event.
It seems as though S75 won't apply.

So, the OP has a car that is 5 years old.
What does the OP wish to happen now as a resolution?
Is the practical thing for the OP to sell the car and buy another?