S75 - Possible faux pas?

Just a quick question.
Just had a new kitchen fitted and there is a lot of issues with it. In talks with the company at the moment to get them rectified.
Back of my mind i'm thinking im safe as I paid two deposits on two different credit cards, however now it's just dawned on me that the contract for the kitchen is in my wifes name. Guessing s75 won't cover now if it ever (and hopefully wont) get to that stage?

Comments

  • Mark_d
    Mark_d Posts: 2,171 Forumite
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary Name Dropper
    I think you're right there.  You have no relationship with the kitchen supplier.  And therefore you have no rights under section 75
  • voluted
    voluted Posts: 128 Forumite
    100 Posts Name Dropper
    Mark_d said:
    I think you're right there.  You have no relationship with the kitchen supplier.  And therefore you have no rights under section 75
    This isn't correct unless the kitchen is solely used by the OP.

    If the cardholder benefits from the transaction, there is S75 protection.

    Most spouses use the kitchen in their marital home so will benefit from it.
  • DullGreyGuy
    DullGreyGuy Posts: 17,199 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    voluted said:
    Mark_d said:
    I think you're right there.  You have no relationship with the kitchen supplier.  And therefore you have no rights under section 75
    This isn't correct unless the kitchen is solely used by the OP.

    If the cardholder benefits from the transaction, there is S75 protection.

    Most spouses use the kitchen in their marital home so will benefit from it.
    There is nothing in Section 75 that talks about "benefiting from"... you may want to read it, it's only a few clauses long. 

    If you were to go to court you would lose the case because the courts are bout the letter of the law and the letter of the law states there must be a direct relationship between debtor, creditor and supplier which by having the supplier contracted to Mrs OP its broken.

    The FOS however is legally required to find fair outcomes and isn't as bound by the law in the same way the courts are. Hence you will find cases where the FOS accepts that a contract really was in joint names even if only one name is on the document or various other minor deviations on the grounds of fairness.

    Of cause some may be underhanded and ask the retailer to reissue the invoice in joint names. 

    The other problems with kitchens is often people buy all aspects from Company A but Company B is subcontracted to do the fitting and as such S75 won't work against the poor actions of B
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453K Spending & Discounts
  • 242.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 619.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.3K Life & Family
  • 255.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.