Everest Double Glazing in administration

gilesco

Well today this long running saga has ended for me, it's taken six months or so, but I've now been refunded £23,972 via the Debit card Chargeback scheme.
Now to find a reputable local supplier.

gilesco

Ectophile said:

Deaner said:

gilesco said:

born_again said:

Deaner said:

It's a near certainty that a chargeback would be blocked by the administrators, hence Section 75. 

The only reason they could use would be that they are supplying the goods. S75 is not a get out of jail free card. Your CC will go chargeback route, as they can reclaim the money, rather than payout out themselves.👍

Never known a administrator decline a chargeback on any case worked. 

The first thing a Liquidator/ administrator does is close down any deposit accounts and move those funds to their account. I am dubious as to whether a chargeback would be successfully done if there are no funds in the original account that was transferred to.

I agree with gilesco. Chargeback is worth a try but highly unlikely to work. The administrators will be protecting the company assets for secured & priority creditors. Any amounts paid back to unsecured creditors (us) would undermine their objective & duty.

The administrators would have to produce a reason why the chargeback if invalid.  "We don't want to lose the money" isn't a good reason.  If the goods aren't going to be delivered, then the chargeback will succeed.

You were right, it took a long time, but they couldn't give a valid reason. They didn't have the money though, so the underwriters of the card processing people took the hit.

born_again

gilesco said:

You were right, it took a long time, but they couldn't give a valid reason. They didn't have the money though, so the underwriters of the card processing people took the hit.

There are no underwriters on chargebacks. 
Any hit comes from the retailer if you get the money back.
Worst case retailer is bust, money comes from their merchant bank. How they get it back is their problem.

FedupConsumer99

Hi all,

Looking for advice if anyone has got refunded when they made bank transfer to Everest. I got the deposit of £7.4K back by chargeback because this was credit card (Barclaycard) but paid pre-manufacture payment via the GoCardless “secure payment link” Everest sent. This was about £21.5K and Barclaycard won’t claim Section 75 because total contract would be over £30K. 

We’re at loss of what to do next and am paying off loan (Barclays) I took to cover the works initially (now regretting not taking out the extortionate 12.5% finance agreement). 

Has anyone in a similar situation got anywhere? 

It doesn’t seem fair that S75 isn’t valid as contract was never finalised as only paid £29K out of £34k. I tried to raise chargeback via my Barclays and via GoCardless but both just wasted a lot of my time and patience as they not able to. Barclays also tried to raise it as a scam only to change their minds when managers looked into it further.

My bank did say Anglian should have more obligations to refund but I don’t know if that’s really the case. Reading others posts though, if Anglian did or didn’t know how much had been paid by customers aren’t they taking on the liabilities regardless?

I also saw someone posted about documents that can be read from Resolve?? How do we access them? I could have got the wrong end of the stick.

It just feels absolutely wrong, that customers/consumers are the ones who inevitably loose out but it will impact banks less. I heard something on radio (about prosecuting information breaches, so not entirely the same) and they pursued funds all the way up to directors once companies went into insolvency. Is Resolve doing this??

Thanks and good luck to everyone!!!

Aylesbury_Duck

FedupConsumer99 said:

Hi all,

Looking for advice if anyone has got refunded when they made bank transfer to Everest. I got the deposit of £7.4K back by chargeback because this was credit card (Barclaycard) but paid pre-manufacture payment via the GoCardless “secure payment link” Everest sent. This was about £21.5K and Barclaycard won’t claim Section 75 because total contract would be over £30K. 

We’re at loss of what to do next and am paying off loan (Barclays) I took to cover the works initially (now regretting not taking out the extortionate 12.5% finance agreement). 

Has anyone in a similar situation got anywhere? 

It doesn’t seem fair that S75 isn’t valid as contract was never finalised as only paid £29K out of £34k. I tried to raise chargeback via my Barclays and via GoCardless but both just wasted a lot of my time and patience as they not able to. Barclays also tried to raise it as a scam only to change their minds when managers looked into it further.

My bank did say Anglian should have more obligations to refund but I don’t know if that’s really the case. Reading others posts though, if Anglian did or didn’t know how much had been paid by customers aren’t they taking on the liabilities regardless?

I also saw someone posted about documents that can be read from Resolve?? How do we access them? I could have got the wrong end of the stick.

It just feels absolutely wrong, that customers/consumers are the ones who inevitably loose out but it will impact banks less. I heard something on radio (about prosecuting information breaches, so not entirely the same) and they pursued funds all the way up to directors once companies went into insolvency. Is Resolve doing this??

Thanks and good luck to everyone!!!

As I understand it, it's the total value of the contract that applies, so Barclaycard are correct in saying S75 doesn't apply.  The most important thing here is to know who has the £21.5k you sent.  If it's Everest, then you're in the queue along with everyone else for what might be pennies in the pound.  If Anglian has your money, then you might sue them for it.

Who has your money?

A_Geordie

Been a while since I've looked at s75 rules in-depth but I am pretty sure that s75 applies to single items of a value between £100 and £30k that the supplier has assigned a cash amount. It is not based on the (common) misconception that it's the total contract value, although the same could be true if it was a single item such as a car purchase.

That might not change the outcome for Fedupconsumer99 but it is worth looking at the contract/invoice to see whether the balance has been itemised. For example, the contract/invoice might state:

1. Materials £7,000
2. Labour £9,500
3. Other costs £5,000

Each line above would be treated as a 'single item' and unless I am mistaken, would be recoverable under s75 rules.

born_again

A_Geordie said:

Been a while since I've looked at s75 rules in-depth but I am pretty sure that s75 applies to single items of a value between £100 and £30k that the supplier has assigned a cash amount. It is not based on the (common) misconception that it's the total contract value, although the same could be true if it was a single item such as a car purchase.

That might not change the outcome for Fedupconsumer99 but it is worth looking at the contract/invoice to see whether the balance has been itemised. For example, the contract/invoice might state:

1. Materials £7,000
2. Labour £9,500
3. Other costs £5,000

Each line above would be treated as a 'single item' and unless I am mistaken, would be recoverable under s75 rules.

Building work such as this is always classed as a single item. 

A_Geordie

born_again said:

A_Geordie said:

Been a while since I've looked at s75 rules in-depth but I am pretty sure that s75 applies to single items of a value between £100 and £30k that the supplier has assigned a cash amount. It is not based on the (common) misconception that it's the total contract value, although the same could be true if it was a single item such as a car purchase.

That might not change the outcome for Fedupconsumer99 but it is worth looking at the contract/invoice to see whether the balance has been itemised. For example, the contract/invoice might state:

1. Materials £7,000
2. Labour £9,500
3. Other costs £5,000

Each line above would be treated as a 'single item' and unless I am mistaken, would be recoverable under s75 rules.

Building work such as this is always classed as a single item. 

Quite right, but there have been the few occasions where building works have been itemised. I have no idea how Everest produce their invoicing/contract documentation but if the works have been broken down by line item then there is a good chance the costs are recoverable.

Still, even if the building work was listed as a single line item of £21.5k, it's under the £30k threshold and therefore should still be recoverable as a single item. 

born_again

Even if it's itemised, it will still be counted as a single build.

Or any payout could be going to be unlimited.

A_Geordie

born_again said:

Even if it's itemised, it will still be counted as a single build.

Or any payout could be going to be unlimited.

Can you elaborate why it would be counted as a single build? Also why would any payout be unlimited? Expensive, sure but unlimited?

If you have any legal authority to support your opinion I'm happy to stand corrected but the way in which s75 is worded, doesn't align with your opinion. S75(3) says:

" ... so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000"

If I were to buy a set of golf clubs for £350 and the set contained 7 clubs and the invoice stated 1 set of 7 golf clubs for £350, I would be covered by s75 because they have been marketed as a single item rather than individual clubs at £50 each. 

In my opinion, the same principle applies to this situation if each line item has been assigned a cash value. If the intention for s75 was to count a group of the same or similar categories of items, then I think the language would have been pretty clear to state that but nowhere can I find any description in the s75 or the CCA that alludes to similar categories collectively counting as a single item. I see that as an attempt to re-write what the law intended.

The supplier has the freedom to market and itemise the costs as they see fit so if Everest have itemised costs in the way I suggested, then it should be taken at face value that they are to be treated as single items. If Everest intended to treat each category of works as a single item then they could have grouped them together under the heading 'building works' with a single attached cash price. Otherwise the risk is as we discuss here, which is a potentially very expensive payout for the credit card company who will no doubt fight tooth and nail to avoid the payout.