We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Section 75 - Claim including poor service

Options
We purchased a kitchen, with the deposit being paid on a AMEX credit card. Whilst most of the kitchen is installed, there are still a couple of undelivered items, and some 'snagging' items outstanding - I've just found out the company is going out of business.

I'm hoping getting a refund from AMEX, via Section 75, on the outstanding items will be fairly straight forward. However what I'm looking for some advice on is if I can claim as part of a section 75 for breach of a contractual term that "they will deliver me a first class service". I believe I have enough evidence to justify the that I haven't been given a first class service up to now, however, there is obviously no line item on the receipt for this.

Does anyone know / have comment on if I can claim this via Section 75 as it's not a direct line item not delivered or explicit consequential loss?

Comments

  • Chrysalis
    Chrysalis Posts: 4,698 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Dont think you going to get a definitive answer, "first class service" is a vague term.  So if you do succeed I expect it wont be easy.
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 36,938 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    phoenix__ said:
    However what I'm looking for some advice on is if I can claim as part of a section 75 for breach of a contractual term that "they will deliver me a first class service".
    In what way is that actually a contractual term as such?

    phoenix__ said:
    Does anyone know / have comment on if I can claim this via Section 75 as it's not a direct line item not delivered or explicit consequential loss?
    What's the quantifiable direct loss attributable to its breach?
  • DullGreyGuy
    DullGreyGuy Posts: 18,366 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    phoenix__ said:
    I believe I have enough evidence to justify the that I haven't been given a first class service up to now, however, there is obviously no line item on the receipt for this.

    Does anyone know / have comment on if I can claim this via Section 75 as it's not a direct line item not delivered or explicit consequential loss?
    What is the exact contractual term in the T&Cs around "first class service"?

    What has been your financial loss as a consequence of this term being breached?

    You have gone on to install the kitchen and so it doesnt seem that the breach was sufficient for you to reject the goods under the CRA as "not as described" due to the service. 
  • grumbler
    grumbler Posts: 58,629 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 18 April 2023 at 8:41AM
    phoenix__ said:
    I believe I have enough evidence to justify the that I haven't been given a first class service up to now, however, there is obviously no line item on the receipt for this.

    Does anyone know / have comment on if I can claim this via Section 75 as it's not a direct line item not delivered or explicit consequential loss?

    You have gone on to install the kitchen and so it doesnt seem that the breach was sufficient for you to reject the goods under the CRA as "not as described" due to the service. 
    Generally, this statement is arguable. It's kitchen+installation, not just 'goods'. And the CRA applies equally to goods and services.

    If, for instance (not in this case), installation takes a month instead of a week, how can you quantify your 'financial loss'?

  • DullGreyGuy
    DullGreyGuy Posts: 18,366 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    grumbler said:
    phoenix__ said:
    I believe I have enough evidence to justify the that I haven't been given a first class service up to now, however, there is obviously no line item on the receipt for this.

    Does anyone know / have comment on if I can claim this via Section 75 as it's not a direct line item not delivered or explicit consequential loss?

    You have gone on to install the kitchen and so it doesnt seem that the breach was sufficient for you to reject the goods under the CRA as "not as described" due to the service. 
    Generally, this statement is arguable. It's kitchen+installation, not just 'goods'. And the CRA applies equally to goods and services.

    If, for instance (not in this case), installation takes a month instead of a week, how can you quantify your 'financial loss'?

    Exactly, which is why I pointed out that they have proceeded to continue and its only the insolvency thats caused a claim to arise. If you are intending to reject the contract as "not as described" you wouldnt continue on with installation etc
  • phoenix__
    phoenix__ Posts: 64 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    The wording is "we will provide a first class service".

    Most of the kitchen is fine, but there are some defects I've been chasing about for over a year (which is the main part of section 75 I now need to claim).

    Actual loss is limited to time chasing and inconvenience. The kitchen was more expensive than we could have got it from one of the nationwide chains (and we were expecting / promised a 'better' service).
  • phoenix__
    phoenix__ Posts: 64 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    DullGreyGuy said:
    Exactly, which is why I pointed out that they have proceeded to continue and its only the insolvency thats caused a claim to arise. If you are intending to reject the contract as "not as described" you wouldnt continue on with installation etc
    I gave them a final warning that if they didn't engage I would be taking things further (legally) and this was the first point they admitted they were closing down.

    In addition to the defect / snagging items, there is also an appliance which hasn't been delivered (initially due to supply chain issues, which I believe was a genuine reason, but the last month I've been less sure due to similar online stock availability). 
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 36,938 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    phoenix__ said:
    Actual loss is limited to time chasing and inconvenience.
    So in terms of your original question about whether this can be claimed via s75, the answer is 'no'....
  • DullGreyGuy
    DullGreyGuy Posts: 18,366 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    phoenix__ said:
    Actual loss is limited to time chasing and inconvenience
    That's not a loss, the courts accept that life sucks sometimes and you sometimes just have to spend time on dealing with things.

    If you said you had to take a half day unpaid leave from work to solve it then that would be a different matter however you would have to show that you attempted to mitigate your losses and substantiate that taking unpaid leave was reasonable in the circumstances. 
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.8K Life & Family
  • 256.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.