Everest Double Glazing in administration

born_again

All I can go by is what our team work by with Home improvements & building work.

If you really wanted to work the system, then get each window installed separately. If they are fitted in one go, then it can not be based as a separate item. 

If poster want to then they could complain & see what FOS say. But I do not think it would change the result.


Example

I have a builder do me an extension. Our contract states the work will cost £100k.

 In order to get s75 CCA protection, I get the builder to give me 4 invoices. 

 

Invoice 1- foundations, £25k (price shown on the contract)

Invoice 2- Roof, £25k (price shown on the contract)

Invoice 3- Walls, £25k (price shown on the contract)

Invoice 4, decorations £25k (price shown on the contract).

Paid one company for the work. 

Each part would not stand on it's own. Therefor it is counted as a single unit.

A_Geordie

Sorry I'm struggling to understand your reasoning and I don't understand what you mean by each part not standing on its own. Fitting and pricing are two entirely separate matters and are not mutually exclusive so I think that's irrelevant for the purposes of interpreting single items.

As for your example, if the contract simply states "Building Works = £100k" bit nothing more, that's a single line item and the invoicing is not likely to matter. But if the building works are itemised in the contract according to the invoicing then they should be treated as single items that each have separate cash values assigned to them.

I'm not disputing that from a custom and practice point in your line of work, that this might be treated as a single item but just because it is practice or industry standard does not necessarily make it the law. The fact that s75 refers to any single item that has a cash value assigned to it is pretty clear cut and so it depends on how the contract has been structured as to the pricing. These are the kinds of nuances that can either make or break a valid claim. 

The CCA was born from the Crowther Report that was published in 1971 (recommended reading), which was intended to make recommendations based on 3 areas, one of which was to readdress bargaining inequality between consumers and traders, and which s75 was implemented on the back of those recommendations. The history of the CCA is all relevant in understanding and interpreting the intention and meaning behind some of the sections of the CCA particualrly where they provide for consumer protections and remedies.

Obviously we can debate this all day long but you are right, those who have paid by credit card, should submit a complaint to the FOS and worst case, legal proceedings.

oliver2345

The documents are available on companies house if you look for Everest2020. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12534543/filing-history 

Statement of administrator's proposal might be the most useful to some

gilesco

born_again said:

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.

Which by definition is underwriting, understanding the risk and deciding if it needs to be re-insured against.

born_again

gilesco said:

born_again said:

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.

Which by definition is underwriting, understanding the risk and deciding if it needs to be re-insured against.

Banks do not insure (Underwriting) anything in these cases. It is simply a in house write off. Which is budgeted for.

gilesco

born_again said:

gilesco said:

born_again said:

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.

Which by definition is underwriting, understanding the risk and deciding if it needs to be re-insured against.

Banks do not insure (Underwriting) anything in these cases. It is simply a in house write off. Which is budgeted for.

I have worked for a payments provider for the last 8 years. We assess chargeback risk for every merchant we bring on board, and the banks do insure against that risk.

born_again

gilesco said:

born_again said:

gilesco said:

born_again said:

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.

Which by definition is underwriting, understanding the risk and deciding if it needs to be re-insured against.

Banks do not insure (Underwriting) anything in these cases. It is simply a in house write off. Which is budgeted for.

I have worked for a payments provider for the last 8 years. We assess chargeback risk for every merchant we bring on board, and the banks do insure against that risk.

We will agree to disagree. Given my experience in the other side.