Section 75 claim question - husband paid on his card, receipt has my name on it.

DullGreyGuy

Dulce-ridentem said:

I still think my husband's claim (which is progressing more slowly, they just acknowledged it) may be rejected on the grounds he was buying something for me. I had no idea that wrinkle in the law existed. 

It's more nuanced than that, if he was the contracting party and the payer and had paid the supplier directly then he would have a valid claim even if it was intended as a present for you. The issue is that it appears you are the contracting party in this case and he is just the payer which is what breaks S75

born_again

Dulce-ridentem said:

Quick update - by going to the shop (300 miles and an overnight hotel) I got the bike back (in the box it was sent to him in almost a year ago, untouched except it was missing the saddle). I also got a copy of the receipt which has made Amex agree to reopen the case. 

I believe the only reason for Amex saying there was no contract was that there was no receipt (for the balance payment - I had the deposit receipt). I suspect they hadn't read any other evidence I sent. Now we just wait a bit. 

I still think my husband's claim (which is progressing more slowly, they just acknowledged it) may be rejected on the grounds he was buying something for me. I had no idea that wrinkle in the law existed. 

You should not be both claiming on the same issue..

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

Dulce-ridentem said:

Quick update - by going to the shop (300 miles and an overnight hotel) I got the bike back (in the box it was sent to him in almost a year ago, untouched except it was missing the saddle). I also got a copy of the receipt which has made Amex agree to reopen the case. 

I believe the only reason for Amex saying there was no contract was that there was no receipt (for the balance payment - I had the deposit receipt). I suspect they hadn't read any other evidence I sent. Now we just wait a bit. 

I still think my husband's claim (which is progressing more slowly, they just acknowledged it) may be rejected on the grounds he was buying something for me. I had no idea that wrinkle in the law existed. 

You should not be both claiming on the same issue..

In principle they can but would have to withdraw the second one once one pays out as otherwise that would be undue enrichment

QrizB

Dulce-ridentem said:

Quick update - by going to the shop (300 miles and an overnight hotel) I got the bike back

Is this the same bike that you recovered on the 7th, or a different one?

Dulce-ridentem said:

Thanks all -- I have managed to get back the bike. So after 2 years and £1300 (and 9 hours driving) ...

Dulce-ridentem

@QrizB- same bike - sorry for confusion. 

@born_again @DullGreyGuy  - naturally we don't plan to benefit from two claims but I will see how they go before withdrawing one. I was assuming there would be a discussion with the credit card companies if and when they agree liability. I believe both have full liability under S75 but my husband's card provider may have more wriggle room as the bike was for me.  The natural thing to me would be to share the total cost between the two providers, but who knows. I have already told each provider about the claim against the other. 

born_again

Dulce-ridentem said:

@QrizB- same bike - sorry for confusion. 

@born_again @DullGreyGuy  - naturally we don't plan to benefit from two claims but I will see how they go before withdrawing one. I was assuming there would be a discussion with the credit card companies if and when they agree liability. I believe both have full liability under S75 but my husband's card provider may have more wriggle room as the bike was for me.  The natural thing to me would be to share the total cost between the two providers, but who knows. I have already told each provider about the claim against the other. 

Very unlikely. 

In reality best to drop husbands claim. As there is a straight out there for them. Also does not look good when they spend time dealing with claims only to be told not to bother.

Dulce-ridentem

@born_again- I am not sure it is really an out for them, reading how S75 works -- it appears to be an out that companies claim but not one that exists in law. So I'm going to stay as I am and see what happens.  

born_again

Dulce-ridentem said:

@born_again- I am not sure it is really an out for them, reading how S75 works -- it appears to be an out that companies claim but not one that exists in law. So I'm going to stay as I am and see what happens.  

Out is debtor-creditor link.
As you paid on your CC, then that is the route.