Section 75

ChippyDave

Hi,
I have applied to Nationwide for a section 75 refund on a vehicle that had got some damage on when it was bought and not noticed as it was high upon the roof.
Nationwide have said that I have to return the vehicle to get a refund rather than receive an amount as compensation. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance of any advice.

DullGreyGuy

ChippyDave said:

Hi,
I have applied to Nationwide for a section 75 refund on a vehicle that had got some damage on when it was bought and not noticed as it was high upon the roof.
Nationwide have said that I have to return the vehicle to get a refund rather than receive an amount as compensation. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance of any advice.

First of all, are they dealing with it as a S75 claim? Normally banks default to doing a chargeback first but I guess you didnt pay for it all on the CC and so it wouldn't be appropriate at this time. 

Who are they saying you must return the vehicle to? Them or the dealer?
How long ago did you purchase the vehicle? Still in the first 30 days?

born_again

ChippyDave said:

Hi,
I have applied to Nationwide for a section 75 refund on a vehicle that had got some damage on when it was bought and not noticed as it was high upon the roof.
Nationwide have said that I have to return the vehicle to get a refund rather than receive an amount as compensation. Is this correct?
Thanks in advance of any advice.

So When did you buy the car?
How old is the car?
Have you contacted the dealer about this?

TBH, S75 is not a get out of jail free car & as you did not notice the damage there is no breach of contract &/or misrepresentation here.

So Nationwide are correct.

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:
TBH, S75 is not a get out of jail free car & as you did not notice the damage there is no breach of contract &/or misrepresentation here.

Assuming this is a professional dealer and not a private sale then the dealer does have certain duties of disclosure and must themselves made reasonable efforts and not rely on a "not as far as I am aware" type answer. 

Would also need to know how it was advertised, if it was advertised as flawless then there has been misrepresentation. 

Would need to know the answers to the various questions already asked, and probably more, but you cannot dismiss out of hand that it hasn't been misrepresented. 

eskbanker

born_again said:
S75 is not a get out of jail free car & as you did not notice the damage there is no breach of contract &/or misrepresentation here.

So Nationwide are correct.

I don't think it's as simple as that - the Consumer Rights Act states that faults identified within the first six months are deemed to have been present at the time of purchase.  Obviously that doesn't mean you can drive your new car into a lamppost and expect redress from the supplier, but my understanding is that the onus is on the supplier (or creditor under s75) to prove that the damage wasn't present when sold, rather than on the purchaser to prove that it was.

OP - what leads you to believe that the damage was present at the time of sale if you didn't notice it at the time?

born_again

I'm basing the post on the info the OP posted. Not dismissing it out of hand.
As answers to questions can change outcome. 

Okell

Is @ChippyDave trying to get a refund AND keep the vehicle?   

eskbanker

born_again said:

I'm basing the post on the info the OP posted. Not dismissing it out of hand.
As answers to questions can change outcome. 

Sure, there will undoubtedly be more facts emerging, but I was challenging your conclusion that "as you did not notice the damage there is no breach of contract &/or misrepresentation here", as failure to notice a fault doesn't in itself waive the purchaser's rights.

eskbanker

Okell said:

Is @ChippyDave trying to get a refund AND keep the vehicle?   

That's not how I read it, they're looking for "an amount as compensation", which to me suggests some form of price reduction.

Okell

eskbanker said:

Okell said:

Is @ChippyDave trying to get a refund AND keep the vehicle?   

That's not how I read it, they're looking for "an amount as compensation", which to me suggests some form of price reduction.

I did wonder if that is what he meant to write.

I also wonder why posters can't give complete and meaningful information from the outset so others don't have to rely on their occasionally fallible psychic powers to work out what they mean

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:

Is ChippyDave trying to get a refund AND keep the vehicle?   

No, they want £100 or whatever for a mobile dent repairer or similar to fix the damage or the cash somewhat equivalent to that