Section 75 - Claim including poor service

phoenix__

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?

Chrysalis

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

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

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

DullGreyGuy 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'?

DullGreyGuy

grumbler said:

DullGreyGuy 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__

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__

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

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

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.