Car purchase

teddyboy02

Hi

My question relates to a 2nd hand car purchase which is for my son.

I paid a small deposit using my credit card to trigger sec75 cover if anything goes wrong.
My question is does it matter if my son now uses HIS debit card to pay the remaining cost(over 5k) as the money will be coming from his saving account.Would we/he still have protection through me paying the initial deposit using my credit card?
Or would it be best for me to pay the remaining cost using my Debit Card as to keep the whole purchase in 1 x name so we dont trigger a loop hole effecting the sec 75 cover?

Just unclear on best and wisest way to do this?

Any info re best way to proceed would be very much appreciated👍

p00hsticks

Whose name is the car going to be in ?
I may be mistaken but think I've seen issues raised before on this forum  (e.g.when buying plane tickets for another person) where the card company has rejected claims because the purchase has been for the benefit of a third party, not the card holder.  

CliveOfIndia

As above, this is a cause of much discussion on these boards.  Strictly speaking, the person paying by credit card must benefit from the purchase in order for S75 to be applicable.  But there are many grey areas, and it's often not clear-cut.  For instance, if the car is registered to your son but you have equal use of it, it could be argued that you're benefitting from the purchase.  As to how you'd prove that you have equal use, I'm not sure - I suspect that simply being a named driver on his policy might not cut it from the credit card's point of view.

I guess the safest way would be for you to pay for the whole lot and have the car registered in your name.  Just make sure he's nominated as the main driver when it comes to insurance.  I think some insurers don't like it if the main driver is different to the RK, but for the majority (in my experience) it's not a problem.

teddyboy02

Re the above answers if my son uses his debit card to pay approx 6k what cover chargeback apart would that give him if say 6 months down the line the engine blew up?
He doesnt have his own credit card as yet hence the issue and questions.

Thanks 

grumbler

MSE: Chargeback refunds

IMHO, for a second hand car your son shouldn't rely on this unless, possibly, the car breaks down straight away and the seller refuses to repair it.

Regarding s75 see What does Section 75 cover?

MEM62

teddyboy02 said:

Or would it be best for me to pay the remaining cost using my Debit Card as to keep the whole purchase in 1 x name so we dont trigger a loop hole effecting the sec 75 cover?

They are not loopholes, they are the terms and conditions of the cover.  

teddyboy02 said:

Re the above answers if my son uses his debit card to pay approx 6k what cover chargeback apart would that give him if say 6 months down the line the engine blew up?

That statement assumes that, if the engine blows up, the dealer is automatically responsible.  They are not and, if you believe that they were, you would have to prove your case. 

S75 isn't going to cover it as the car is being purchased for your son.  If you want some kind of assurance against future issues I would suggest looking at purchasing a warranty.    

DullGreyGuy

CliveOfIndia said:

As above, this is a cause of much discussion on these boards.  Strictly speaking, the person paying by credit card must benefit from the purchase in order for S75 to be applicable.  

No, the law says nothing about benefiting from the purchase. It seems to be an idea introduced by websites trying to dumb it down and explain it in simple, but inaccurate, wording.

The law states that the debtor creditor supplier chain must exist and not be broken by other parties (the courts already ruled that merchant banks can be ignored for this test).

So for the OP to benefit from S75 protection they must be the legal buyer of the vehicle, doesn't mean he will be the registered keeper nor the user of the car. There is more than one FOS decision where a parent bought something as a gift for a child (inc a car) and the FOS upheld it... even on the dodgy one where the child was listed as the buyer and parent as the registered keeper with double ended arrows suggesting these two should be switched.

If the contract is in the kids name then the OP paying anything on their card wouldnt give S75 protection.