What does a Section 75 claim actually get you?

PHK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

Where valid, Section 75 just means that you have the same rights against the credit provider as you would against the trader. 

wld70 said:

However, the claim is about some faulty work done on the house, and the offer from the Section 75 team is only the cost of removing the faulty installation and repairing/restoring the house to how it was prior to any work being done. We are now being told that they are not liable for the money we paid out in the first place. 

This really depends. 

For the original payment, if the service wasn't carried out with due care and skill you are entitled to a price reduction to reflect the difference in what was paid for and what was received. 

If the cost of seeing the contract fully performed is greater than the original price paid then the extra is, AFAIK, damages. 

If you pay someone to install a stud wall to split a bedroom in two and they bodge the job to the point it needs completely redoing your claim is to be in the position you would have had been in should they have done the job correctly.

So rather than bodged wall taken out and room made good to how it was before you'd be entitled to (typically the cost of) removing and having it redone correctly minus the what you paid as your loss is only the extra rather than the extra + the original payment. 

If you paid a plumber to run new pipework with copper and they used plastic, it might be the case that the plastic is sufficient so instead you could claim a price reduction to reflect the difference in material cost  (and labour if there is any).

For us to advise specifically you'd have to let us know specifically what's happened

PHK said:

So for a faulty item, you'll often get a repair or replacement unless it's a small item. 

There was a discussion recently about what happens to rejected goods when the credit card company refunds and conclusion appeared to be a credit provider probably doesn't want them back. 

Always happy to be corrected, but I would have thought the credit provider would be more likely to hand out the money than going to the trouble of repairing/replacing goods? 

I know it's often said on here the trader has a choice between repair/replace/refund but it is instead the case that the consumer has the right to a repair/replacement (caveats aside) so the credit provider doing such would be correct but without a court awarding specific performance it feels the easiest option for them is to refund.  

As I said if it's a small item then they'll refund. But if it's a larger or less common item then they'll use the same replacement and repair companies that an insurer would. Eg.  If it's a faulty £10,000 hot tub you can bet they'll repair or replace. 

 It's more cost effective and gives the consumer what they should have. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

wld70 said:

The Section 75 team say they are not required to refund the original outlay.

As DGG says OP if the bank won't budge you can complain to the ombudsman but from reading on here they generally rule on whether you've been treated fairly which isn't necessarily the same as whether they've fulfilled their legal obligations under S75 (which I would have thought are the same thing but there you go).

Beyond that as with everything you are looking at letter before action and small claims.

I think you are in a tricky area as this spray foam lark is, IMO, an industry that shouldn't exist, except perhaps in a few obscure situations, which has legitimised itself, a bit like the rising damp industry.  

I think to start though you should simply ask the credit provider to provide their reasoning, it's difficult for us to say more without knowing that  

PHK said:

As I said if it's a small item then they'll refund. But if it's a larger or less common item then they'll use the same replacement and repair companies that an insurer would. Eg.  If it's a faulty £10,000 hot tub you can bet they'll repair or replace. 

 It's more cost effective and gives the consumer what they should have. 

On the other thread I was asking if you have the reject to reject and get a refund for say a £20k watch surely the bank would want a £20k watch back in exchange for the refund but the answer seemed to be not necessarily.

@born_again any thoughts on whether banks and such are likely to offer repairs or replacements under S75? 

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

wld70 said:

The Section 75 team say they are not required to refund the original outlay.

As DGG says OP if the bank won't budge you can complain to the ombudsman but from reading on here they generally rule on whether you've been treated fairly which isn't necessarily the same as whether they've fulfilled their legal obligations under S75 (which I would have thought are the same thing but there you go).

Beyond that as with everything you are looking at letter before action and small claims.

I think you are in a tricky area as this spray foam lark is, IMO, an industry that shouldn't exist, except perhaps in a few obscure situations, which has legitimised itself, a bit like the rising damp industry.  

I think to start though you should simply ask the credit provider to provide their reasoning, it's difficult for us to say more without knowing that  

PHK said:

As I said if it's a small item then they'll refund. But if it's a larger or less common item then they'll use the same replacement and repair companies that an insurer would. Eg.  If it's a faulty £10,000 hot tub you can bet they'll repair or replace. 

 It's more cost effective and gives the consumer what they should have. 

On the other thread I was asking if you have the reject to reject and get a refund for say a £20k watch surely the bank would want a £20k watch back in exchange for the refund but the answer seemed to be not necessarily.

@born_again any thoughts on whether banks and such are likely to offer repairs or replacements under S75? 

Really is going to depend on the situation, as each case is viewed on it's own merits.

They could say here is a refund for the £9K & leave OP to sort the mess out themselves. Or they could offer to pay for the resolution of the issue. May cost more or less.
So in some cases they will look at it on the basis, what can we get away with 👍

Getting a bit off topic. This is where S75 is way out of line, as CC providers are not experts in these fields. Unlike as it was intended, where the lenders were involved more in the trade needing the loan.

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

Getting a bit off topic. This is where S75 is way out of line, as CC providers are not experts in these fields. Unlike as it was intended, where the lenders were involved more in the trade needing the loan.

For low value consumer finance I am not sure lenders ever have been experts in the trade they are lending to... there is plenty of traditional tied finance out there still, which is what S75 had in mind when it was created, and I doubt Barclays are experts in mobiles/tablets/laptops/earphones or Creation are experts in sofas and yet both are tied to retailers in those sectors.

Things do become different when you are talking about much larger purchases like cars and in particular where the finance is like HP and secured against the asset. 

In commercial lending it gets a bit blurry again, having worked for a lender in that space, but then there is no S75 cover (though they did pay almost £2m a year in insurance to ensure they weren't liable for any injuries etc the financed asset may cause)

saajan_12

wld70 said:

Thank you everyone for the replies.

Ok, details: it was for spray foam roof insulation, ~£9000. We gave the company 6 months and multiple calls and visits, where they said the job was incomplete and the paperwork with guarantees/warranty was forthcoming. After that period we contacted the credit card's Section 75 team.

This then leads into my original question details, where a third party inspector declared the material used to be wrong for domestic purposes. 

So the offer is to cover removal of the foam, inspection and repair of any damage done by the material and then reinsulate using a similar to the original insulation that had been removed as part of the foam insulation work. 

The confusion has been that the house is being put to 'rights' but we are still down the £9000, which we felt was contrary to the credit card's Section 75 team's initial statement 'you will not be out of pocket.' 

It also seems the company that sold the spray foam insulation is now reopening under a new name, as the original is now under investigation by Trading Standards and has been referred to the Procurator Fiscal.  

Perhaps it was a combination of their poor choice of words and our wishful thinking.

WLD70

Is the CC provider saying that the removal / repair / re insulation with correct material constitutes
(A) completing the job correctly, or
(B) puts you back in the position pre-work?

If it completes the work, then you wouldn't be "out" the £9k as that's what you expected to pay and get the work completed. 
If it puts you back in the original position then you should also be refunded the £9k. 

I'd try to establish that, then the argument is just whether the work is effectively doing (A) or (B).

wld70

Thank you everyone who replied, as a last check we are trying Citizen's Advice again.