Everest Double Glazing in administration

born_again

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.

Not how chargebacks work. Refunds come from their merchant bank. How they get it back is down to them.

born_again

gilesco said:

born_again said:

gilesco said:

I'm down £23,972 paid by debit card. Only found out today, when chasing Everest up for an install date, then the ReSolve letter arrived this afternoon. Have tried the chargeback option via online form for both payments. No confirmation /response from NatWest. No NatWest phone number anywhere on their site either. Do banks still employ people at all?

https://www.natwest.com/support-centre/contact-us.html

It will take them time to look at your claim & action it. 
Remember that NW will be receiving hundreds or thousands of disputes a day. So it takes time to work through them. Never mind in terms of Everest, banks are talking to Visa/Mastercard about the situation & how they will progress it. As they are only in administration. Not fully gone bust.

Banks who had hundreds of thousands of clients used to have thousands of bank employees to service them, we seem to have eek'ed it out to 1 employee per hundred thousand...

This episode has turned me into an old grumpy man overnight!

Disputes is a very niche area. Due to the amount of card regulations. So the team will not be large. 

Some bright spark decided that our call center could do this work. lasted all of a couple of days. Due to the staff kicking up such as fuss, as they had no idea what they were doing. Meaning spending time waiting for us to advise them & the resulting delays meaning customers had to wait longer to get through. 👍

We did tell them it would not work, but you know management always know better 🤣

Guest2025

How does section 75 work -we argue the bank is severely and jointly liable for the contract? Would it also cover typical Section 75  breach of contract (not fit for purpose, etc) on items already installed -as at this point the only replacement option is Evolution, which they have now set up as a separate, unrelated entity - so won’t be using that to cover customers (effectively keeping the high margin, premium business & leaving customers & trade creditors of the low margin business likely out of pocket). 

eskbanker

Guest2025 said:

How does section 75 work -we argue the bank is severely and jointly liable for the contract? Would it also cover typical Section 75  breach of contract (not fit for purpose, etc) on items already installed -as at this point the only replacement option is Evolution, which they have now set up as a separate, unrelated entity - so won’t be using that to cover customers (effectively keeping the high margin, premium business & leaving customers & trade creditors of the low margin business likely out of pocket). 

Yes, section 75 grants the debtor the same rights against the finance company that they have against the supplier, when there's a breach of contract, so if you can demonstrate such a breach then you can choose to pursue the creditor instead of the supplier.

Guest2025

eskbanker said:

Guest2025 said:

How does section 75 work -we argue the bank is severely and jointly liable for the contract? Would it also cover typical Section 75  breach of contract (not fit for purpose, etc) on items already installed -as at this point the only replacement option is Evolution, which they have now set up as a separate, unrelated entity - so won’t be using that to cover customers (effectively keeping the high margin, premium business & leaving customers & trade creditors of the low margin business likely out of pocket). 

Yes, section 75 grants the debtor the same rights against the finance company that they have against the supplier, when there's a breach of contract, so if you can demonstrate such a breach then you can choose to pursue the creditor instead of the supplier.

So still applies when with Everest in administration and not a going concern? The FAQS here seemed to imply, in an in administration situation, it is only applicable if didn’t receive goods - not if you had already (ie doesn’t cover refunds - which effectively this would be with the company kaput). 

I’m just trying to figure out how to frame our claim - if I can go the route that product not fit for purpose & mis-represented.  

Or I can only claim on what hasn’t yet been installed. 

eskbanker

Guest2025 said:

eskbanker said:

Guest2025 said:

How does section 75 work -we argue the bank is severely and jointly liable for the contract? Would it also cover typical Section 75  breach of contract (not fit for purpose, etc) on items already installed -as at this point the only replacement option is Evolution, which they have now set up as a separate, unrelated entity - so won’t be using that to cover customers (effectively keeping the high margin, premium business & leaving customers & trade creditors of the low margin business likely out of pocket). 

Yes, section 75 grants the debtor the same rights against the finance company that they have against the supplier, when there's a breach of contract, so if you can demonstrate such a breach then you can choose to pursue the creditor instead of the supplier.

So still applies when with Everest in administration and not a going concern? The FAQS here seemed to imply, in an in administration situation, it is only applicable if didn’t receive goods - not if you had already (ie doesn’t cover refunds - which effectively this would be with the company kaput). 

I’m just trying to figure out how to frame our claim - if I can go the route that product not fit for purpose & mis-represented.  

Or I can only claim on what hasn’t yet been installed. 

The fact that the creditor is jointly and severally liable means that you can choose to pursue them regardless of whether or not the supplier is still trading, so any statements made on the supplier's website don't affect this.

gilesco

https://www.anglianhome.co.uk/news/administrators-of-everest-2020-ltd-agree-contract-with-anglian

born_again

Good news then 👍

SuperFran24

That's good news. I am wondering what it would happen to the warranty if the windows get installed by Anglian and Everest doesn't resuscitate (or change name etc).

Guest2025

I am not sure this is as great as it sounds, as if you want your deposit as you don’t want Anglian windows  - can your credit card provider refuse on the grounds that Anglian has said they would fulfil the contact?  

we didn’t get FENSA certificates - is Anglian going to give us those despite not having done the install? Are they going to assume the warranty on our half completed install, the products which continue to fail? 

I suspect the subcontracting is simply their installers for products in the warehouse, no warranty coverage.  For those without product made, they will sign a new contract for Anglian products - at same price - albeit likely not like for like.