Section 75 Claim

sturner66

Advice please: I paid on my Lloyds credit card for mechanical works to be completed on my husbands vehicle (new engine).  I contacted Lloyds to make a Section 75 Claim due to the work carried out was without reasonable care and skill which has now led to a dispute with the garage.  The vehicle has been left unroadworthy!
Lloyds reply: Under Section 75 the contract must be in the name of the credit card account holder and the card holder must be the receiver of the services.

Grumpy_chap

sturner66 said:

Advice please: I paid on my Lloyds credit card for mechanical works to be completed on my husbands vehicle (new engine).  I contacted Lloyds to make a Section 75 Claim due to the work carried out was without reasonable care and skill which has now led to a dispute with the garage.  The vehicle has been left unroadworthy!
Lloyds reply: Under Section 75 the contract must be in the name of the credit card account holder and the card holder must be the receiver of the services.

Lloyds are correct that you have not suffered a loss.  Your husband has suffered a loss, but not you.
What name is the invoice paperwork in from the garage - you or your husband?

What is the reason the car has been left unroadworthy after having a new engine fitted?
Is the garage still doing further work to get the vehicle roadworthy?
Is the reason unrelated to the new engine?
Did you ask for a new engine to be fitted, or did you ask the garage to identify and resolve a fault?

Voyager2002

sturner66 said:

Lloyds reply: Under Section 75 the contract must be in the name of the credit card account holder and the card holder must be the receiver of the services.

That is correct so far as it goes. Is the credit card account in your name, or are you an additional card-holder on your partner's account? And did the garage agree to do the work for you, or did you simply arrange work that they were doing for your partner?

DullGreyGuy

Voyager2002 said:

sturner66 said:

Lloyds reply: Under Section 75 the contract must be in the name of the credit card account holder and the card holder must be the receiver of the services.

That is correct so far as it goes. Is the credit card account in your name, or are you an additional card-holder on your partner's account? And did the garage agree to do the work for you, or did you simply arrange work that they were doing for your partner?

It's an interpretation but not the one the FOS goes for. 

1) Are you the account holder or a secondary card holder?
2) Whos name is on the invoice from the garage?

sturner66

Credit Card is in my name only, my husband is not an additional card holder.  All the quotes/paperwork from the garage are in my husbands name.  The list of issues are too long to mention following the new engine!  The company are no longer replying to calls, texts or emails.
I've seen other posts mention 'chargeback' is this something I might be able to do?

born_again

sturner66 said:

Credit Card is in my name only, my husband is not an additional card holder.  All the quotes/paperwork from the garage are in my husbands name.  The list of issues are too long to mention following the new engine!  The company are no longer replying to calls, texts or emails.
I've seen other posts mention 'chargeback' is this something I might be able to do?

work carried out was without reasonable care and skill 
Is not something covered under Chargebacks.

DullGreyGuy

sturner66 said:

Credit Card is in my name only, my husband is not an additional card holder.  All the quotes/paperwork from the garage are in my husbands name.  The list of issues are too long to mention following the new engine!  The company are no longer replying to calls, texts or emails.
I've seen other posts mention 'chargeback' is this something I might be able to do?

So you have a broken chain, you dont have a contract with the supplier as they were in your husband's name not yours. 

Who uses the car? The FOS has on occasions accepted something is a joint purchase and its simply for practicalities that only one person was named on the paperwork or the secondary cardholder was the one that paid. Its a long shot though and requires the FOS to be in the mood of finding a fair outcome rather than mirroring what the court would have done (which technically is their obligation but its where things get grey)