Joint credit cards

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:
A secondary cardholder doesn't break the chain though either as they are still making the debtor liable to the creditor unlike an agent that sits between two of the links.

That's not how FOS interpreted the Mr & Mrs L case cited above, where it was determined that a purchase made by Mrs L did break the chain by virtue of her being the secondary cardholder?

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
A secondary cardholder doesn't break the chain though either as they are still making the debtor liable to the creditor unlike an agent that sits between two of the links.

That's not how FOS interpreted the Mr & Mrs L case cited above, where it was determined that a purchase made by Mrs L did break the chain by virtue of her being the secondary cardholder?

It wasn't that it was a secondary cardholder card being used that broke the chain but the fact the contracting party was the secondary cardholder

lr1277

Thanks @DullGreyGuy for your sources. I don't claim to understand them or your analysis. However as @grumbler pointed out by way of MSE, this is a murky area. A particular case might only be decided by the relevant authority or a court. But cut and dried it is not.

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
A secondary cardholder doesn't break the chain though either as they are still making the debtor liable to the creditor unlike an agent that sits between two of the links.

That's not how FOS interpreted the Mr & Mrs L case cited above, where it was determined that a purchase made by Mrs L did break the chain by virtue of her being the secondary cardholder?

It wasn't that it was a secondary cardholder card being used that broke the chain but the fact the contracting party was the secondary cardholder

Perhaps I'm being obtuse but to me "a purchase made by a secondary cardholder" and one where "the contracting party was the secondary cardholder" are one and the same to all intents and purposes?

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
A secondary cardholder doesn't break the chain though either as they are still making the debtor liable to the creditor unlike an agent that sits between two of the links.

That's not how FOS interpreted the Mr & Mrs L case cited above, where it was determined that a purchase made by Mrs L did break the chain by virtue of her being the secondary cardholder?

It wasn't that it was a secondary cardholder card being used that broke the chain but the fact the contracting party was the secondary cardholder

Perhaps I'm being obtuse but to me "a purchase made by a secondary cardholder" and one where "the contracting party was the secondary cardholder" are one and the same to all intents and purposes?

I'm trying to differentiate between the physical act of paying and being the contracting party; "purchasing" is a bit fluffy and potentially could be interpreted as either. Had the contract of purchase been with Mr but Mrs still used her secondary card to pay then S75 would have applied. 

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:
A secondary cardholder doesn't break the chain though either as they are still making the debtor liable to the creditor unlike an agent that sits between two of the links.

That's not how FOS interpreted the Mr & Mrs L case cited above, where it was determined that a purchase made by Mrs L did break the chain by virtue of her being the secondary cardholder?

It wasn't that it was a secondary cardholder card being used that broke the chain but the fact the contracting party was the secondary cardholder

Perhaps I'm being obtuse but to me "a purchase made by a secondary cardholder" and one where "the contracting party was the secondary cardholder" are one and the same to all intents and purposes?

I'm trying to differentiate between the physical act of paying and being the contracting party; "purchasing" is a bit fluffy and potentially could be interpreted as either. Had the contract of purchase been with Mr but Mrs still used her secondary card to pay then S75 would have applied. 

OK, I can see the distinction, but the innermost quote in the above nest doesn't really reflect that nuance, i.e. a secondary cardholder doesn't break the chain if the primary cardholder is the (or at least a) contracting party, but otherwise does break the chain (despite making the debtor liable to the creditor).