Section 75 claim rejected

Mojisola

Can anyone help with this?

We own a property as tenants in common with our daughter who lives there.

My husband paid for new french doors on his credit card.  The company supplying the doors has gone out of business.

He signed the contract but put our daughter's name and address on the contract as that was the address where the work was to be done.

The CC company are rejecting the Section 75 claim because they say the card holder must be the beneficiary.

We can't find this in any of the legislation - are they fobbing us off?

MattMattMattUK

Mojisola said:

Can anyone help with this?

We own a property as tenants in common with our daughter who lives there.

My husband paid for new french doors on his credit card.  The company supplying the doors has gone out of business.

He signed the contract but put our daughter's name and address on the contract as that was the address where the work was to be done.

The CC company are rejecting the Section 75 claim because they say the card holder must be the beneficiary.

We can't find this in any of the legislation - are they fobbing us off?

They are correct, as the contract was in your daughter's name Section 75 does not apply. 

eskbanker

He should be able to make a chargeback claim instead?

CliveOfIndia

Mojisola said:

The CC company are rejecting the Section 75 claim because they say the card holder must be the beneficiary.

This is correct - a full explanation can be found here: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

fryedslyce

CliveOfIndia said:

Mojisola said:

The CC company are rejecting the Section 75 claim because they say the card holder must be the beneficiary.

This is correct - a full explanation can be found here: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

Not strictly true, it may well be that the op's husband is a contracting party and therefore the debtor-creditor-supplier chain exists. 

DullGreyGuy

Mojisola said:

Can anyone help with this?

We own a property as tenants in common with our daughter who lives there.

My husband paid for new french doors on his credit card.  The company supplying the doors has gone out of business.

He signed the contract but put our daughter's name and address on the contract as that was the address where the work was to be done.

The CC company are rejecting the Section 75 claim because they say the card holder must be the beneficiary.

We can't find this in any of the legislation - are they fobbing us off?

Beneficiary is the wrong term, he has to be the contracting party as per S75(1) below:

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

Its that very innocuous debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement that creates the requirement

So the only way you can get a different decision is if you can prove he was the contracting party. There is an FOS case that has been linked to a couple of times where a parent bought a car for their child as a gift and the garage incorrectly named the child on the invoice because it was what was going onto the V5 for the car. I cannot remember exactly what evidence they had but they convinced the FOS that the invoice was erroneous and actually the cardholder was the contracting party therefore the D-C-S relationship was intact.

If you cannot prove he is the contracting party then no S75 because there is no contract between the Debtor and the Supplier. 


A defunct supplier is better dealt with as a chargeback though and then the D-C-S is irrelevant 

Mojisola

DullGreyGuy said:

Beneficiary is the wrong term, he has to be the contracting party as per S75(1) below:

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

Its that very innocuous debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement that creates the requirement

So the only way you can get a different decision is if you can prove he was the contracting party. There is an FOS case that has been linked to a couple of times where a parent bought a car for their child as a gift and the garage incorrectly named the child on the invoice because it was what was going onto the V5 for the car. I cannot remember exactly what evidence they had but they convinced the FOS that the invoice was erroneous and actually the cardholder was the contracting party therefore the D-C-S relationship was intact.

If you cannot prove he is the contracting party then no S75 because there is no contract between the Debtor and the Supplier. 

It was his credit card and he signed the contract - doesn't that make him the contracting party?

fryedslyce

Each case will be judged on its merits if you take it to the Financial Ombudsman.

The below cases provide some relevant context with regard to contracting parties and the debtor-creditor-supplier chain:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN1977881.pdf
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN6092853.pdf
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-1660796.pdf
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN3097801.pdf
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN2937035.pdf
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN3371340.pdf
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3382396.pdf

eddddy

Mojisola said:

It was his credit card and he signed the contract - doesn't that make him the contracting party?

You need to read the contract he signed to see what it says.

Does it say that the contract is between your husband and the door company, or does it say that the contract is between your daughter and the door company?  (And/or how would a reasonable person interpret the contract?)


For example,...

• If the contract said something like "Customer Name" and your husband wrote your daughter's name - it would be extremely hard to argue that the contract isn't between your daughter and the door company.

• But if the form said something like "Contact person at installation address" and your husband wrote your daughter's name - that alone doesn't really prove that the contract is between your daughter and the door company.

(And to clarify - if the contract is between your daughter and the door company, just because your husband pays, it doesn't make him party to the contract.)

NoodleDoodleMan

"We own a property as tenants in common with our daughter who lives there."

Maybe I've missed something - how can tenants own a property ?

eddddy

NoodleDoodleMan said:

"We own a property as tenants in common with our daughter who lives there."

Maybe I've missed something - how can tenants own a property ?

"Tenants in common" is a legal term that describes how ownership of a property is split. You'll find lots of info, if you google it.

Here's a random link thrown up by google: https://www.charcol.co.uk/guides/tenants-in-common/