Section 75 ends up in Civil Claims?

slatham

I will try and keep this brief. Call out a plumber - charged a call out and then a labour charge of £189 an hour x2! Plumber then misdiagnosed the fault, didn’t fix, left the system without a header tank / water pump and offered £1000+ to fix this incorrect part priced at £50!
I wasn’t happy at the standard of work, contacted credit card and utilised Section 75 CCA….. they ruled unanimously in my favour and I was refunded under CCA. 
Plumber then isn’t happy, asks me to pay and then lodges Money Claims online which then ends up arguing over this amount plus court costs. 

Where’s the protection for correct section 75 use? How is this possible? It could get messy in arguing in court? Any thoughts? Suggestions? 

Voyager2002

Clearly the credit card implemented a chargeback rather than a Section 75.

Under the circumstances you are very likely to win in court, leaving the plumber with extra costs.

marcia_

slatham said:

I will try and keep this brief. Call out a plumber - charged a call out and then a labour charge of £189 an hour x2! Plumber then misdiagnosed the fault, didn’t fix, left the system without a header tank / water pump and offered £1000+ to fix this incorrect part priced at £50!
I wasn’t happy at the standard of work, contacted credit card and utilised Section 75 CCA….. they ruled unanimously in my favour and I was refunded under CCA. 
Plumber then isn’t happy, asks me to pay and then lodges Money Claims online which then ends up arguing over this amount plus court costs. 

Where’s the protection for correct section 75 use? How is this possible? It could get messy in arguing in court? Any thoughts? Suggestions? 

 As voyager says you now need to fight this in Court. If you provide the same evidence you did to your bank and probably a report/letter from the plumber you got to fix his work you should win. 

Okell

Voyager2002 said:

Clearly the credit card implemented a chargeback rather than a Section 75.

Under the circumstances you are very likely to win in court, leaving the plumber with extra costs.

And I would complain to my bank that rather than processing a s75 claim as I requested they processed a chargeback leaving me open to being sued by the plumber.

That is not looking after your customer.

Okell

slatham said:

I will try and keep this brief. Call out a plumber - charged a call out and then a labour charge of £189 an hour x2! Plumber then misdiagnosed the fault, didn’t fix, left the system without a header tank / water pump and offered £1000+ to fix this incorrect part priced at £50!
I wasn’t happy at the standard of work, contacted credit card and utilised Section 75 CCA….. they ruled unanimously in my favour and I was refunded under CCA...

As an aside and further to my earlier post, what did you actually claim from your card provider?  Just the callout fee or what?

born_again

Okell said:

Voyager2002 said:

Clearly the credit card implemented a chargeback rather than a Section 75.

Under the circumstances you are very likely to win in court, leaving the plumber with extra costs.

And I would complain to my bank that rather than processing a s75 claim as I requested they processed a chargeback leaving me open to being sued by the plumber.

That is not looking after your customer.

OP has not mentioned what they actually claimed for?
Call out fee not mentioned
Labour charge is under £100 a hour
No mention if the £1000 work was done.

So this may not even fall under a S75 claim..

End of the day this has been debated before & bank will do what they need to do to resolve in the best & most timely manner.

Voyager2002

Okell said:

Voyager2002 said:

Clearly the credit card implemented a chargeback rather than a Section 75.

Under the circumstances you are very likely to win in court, leaving the plumber with extra costs.

And I would complain to my bank that rather than processing a s75 claim as I requested they processed a chargeback leaving me open to being sued by the plumber.

That is not looking after your customer.

You are free to complain, but it does sound as if the bank acted correctly. Why should the plumber get paid for dong such a terrible job? Why should the bank foot the bill when the problem is the plumber's fault?

Section 75 is not a blank cheque in your favour: it simply means that the bank is legally liable just as the plumber is liable, so that had the plumber disappeared you would have been able to sue the bank for the money you paid.

SiliconChip

born_again said:

Okell said:

Voyager2002 said:

Clearly the credit card implemented a chargeback rather than a Section 75.

Under the circumstances you are very likely to win in court, leaving the plumber with extra costs.

And I would complain to my bank that rather than processing a s75 claim as I requested they processed a chargeback leaving me open to being sued by the plumber.

That is not looking after your customer.

Labour charge is under £100 a hour

While it's not entirely clear from the OP I think it's suggesting that the charge is £189 per hour and they were charged for 2 hours so a total of £378 for labour.

born_again

We'll have to wait & see what OP says.
Even so just because the amount is over £100 does not mean that there has been a breach of contract &/or misrepresentation

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:

Voyager2002 said:

Clearly the credit card implemented a chargeback rather than a Section 75.

Under the circumstances you are very likely to win in court, leaving the plumber with extra costs.

And I would complain to my bank that rather than processing a s75 claim as I requested they processed a chargeback leaving me open to being sued by the plumber.

That is not looking after your customer.

Most banks only give you the option of raising a dispute, rather than letting you specify if it's a chargeback or S75. Its generally best practice to process it as a chargeback first because there are tighter time limits on a chargeback and so you can do a chargeback and if that fails then a S75 claim whereas if a S75 claim fails you will almost certainly be out of time for a chargeback. 

Ultimately you are free to raise a complaint with your bank, and take the matter to the ombudsman if you disagree with their response. I am fairly certain the ombudsman however will only see this is as a communication issue and so would be a token settlement for them not being clearer that it would be dealt with as a chargeback.