URGENT:Section 75/Consumer Rights Act Help – Faulty Car, Retailer Refusing Refund, HSBC Delaying

Bartox

Hello,

This is my first post here and I have a very similar issue to you and through my HSBC credit card.

Have you found the written communication from HSBC to be very unprofessional? I received a reply stating that I should have known better than to buy a car with a knocking sound (that was not a direct quote BTW).

HSBC have asked me to get an inspection as well and from what I can see, if you want to pursue a court claim or Section 75 claim, you have to have an inspection completed.

However, I did ponder the point made by the first reply to your post. The stance I took with the trader was under CRA 2015, I do not have to prove anything the burden of proof is upon you, but I don't know what I didn't take the same approach with HSBC.

With S.75 claims, they are jointly and severally liable for the contract and therefore, I don't see why (as I complained about my vehicle fault within the first month) I have to prove anything or spend hundreds of pounds on an inspection.

Surely, it is for HSBC/Trader to defend my allegation by providing the report and proving that the fault was not there at the time of purchase? However, if HSBC refuse, I suppose you take it to the Financial Ombudsman and say that HSBC are being unreasonable as they essentially take the place of the trader when making a S.75 claim?

Eager2learnASAP1357

Quick update

Following HSBC’s request, I obtained an independent inspection from an AA-approved garage, including an engine specialist report (paid for on my HSBC credit card). The vehicle is now disassembled and undriveable as a result, with storage charges accruing at £36 per day.

The independent findings show:

• Cylinder head warped by 8–10 thou (manufacturer limit 3–4 thou), making a reliable seal impossible. This level of warpage should not occur within a month of a competent repair.

• Old, non-functional water pump left in place, contributing to coolant loss and overheating.

• Engine timing set two teeth out, causing juddering and additional mechanical stress.

These findings directly contradict the retailer’s claim that their CRA repair was completed successfully and demonstrate the repair was carried out without reasonable care and skill.

The vehicle originally broke down within six weeks of purchase, and the same symptoms (coolant loss, overheating and juddering) returned within a month of the retailer’s repair. The retailer has refused my final right to reject and has not produced any independent expert evidence to rebut the findings.

I’ve formally asked HSBC to:

• Reimburse the £850 inspection cost (previously agreed).

• Cover ongoing storage charges while the claim is unresolved.

• Process a full refund under Section 75, as I’m rejecting any further repair given the failed repair, seriousness of the faults, short timeframe, and loss of confidence.

I’ve also asked HSBC to confirm they’ve reviewed all submitted reports and to escalate or issue a final response if they won’t resolve this, so I can take it to the FOS.

Any thoughts on whether HSBC should now be accepting liability and covering the ongoing costs would be appreciated.

born_again

Eager2learnASAP1357 said:

Quick update

Following HSBC’s request, I obtained an independent inspection from an AA-approved garage, including an engine specialist report (paid for on my HSBC credit card). The vehicle is now disassembled and undriveable as a result, with storage charges accruing at £36 per day.

The independent findings show:

• Cylinder head warped by 8–10 thou (manufacturer limit 3–4 thou), making a reliable seal impossible. This level of warpage should not occur within a month of a competent repair.

• Old, non-functional water pump left in place, contributing to coolant loss and overheating.

• Engine timing set two teeth out, causing juddering and additional mechanical stress.

These findings directly contradict the retailer’s claim that their CRA repair was completed successfully and demonstrate the repair was carried out without reasonable care and skill.

The vehicle originally broke down within six weeks of purchase, and the same symptoms (coolant loss, overheating and juddering) returned within a month of the retailer’s repair. The retailer has refused my final right to reject and has not produced any independent expert evidence to rebut the findings.

I’ve formally asked HSBC to:

• Reimburse the £850 inspection cost (previously agreed).

• Cover ongoing storage charges while the claim is unresolved.

• Process a full refund under Section 75, as I’m rejecting any further repair given the failed repair, seriousness of the faults, short timeframe, and loss of confidence.

I’ve also asked HSBC to confirm they’ve reviewed all submitted reports and to escalate or issue a final response if they won’t resolve this, so I can take it to the FOS.

Any thoughts on whether HSBC should now be accepting liability and covering the ongoing costs would be appreciated.

So when was this submitted?
S75 is never fast as you have found out.

In reality you will just have to wait & see what HSBC say. They have all the evidence, so ball is in their court.

Eager2learnASAP1357

Received this from HSBC today:

The report you have provided is stating previous works may be a contributing factor however it does not state it is.

Not withstanding the limitations of the report, we will require quotes for remedial as your report does not state it cannot be repaired.

Furthermore the bank is not able to consider any storage charges as that was something within your control for which you opted.

The Act provisions for placing you back in the position of having a working vehicle, and does not cover for what is in your control.

my thoughts:

I would like to clarify and challenge several points raised in HSBC’s assessment of my Section 75 claim.

First, while the independent report suggests previous work may have been a contributing factor, this does not remove the trader’s liability. The report identifies the primary defect as 8–10 thou of warpage, which is outside the recommended tolerance of 3–4 thou. This confirms that following the supplier’s work, the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose. Section 75 does not require absolute certainty as to causation, only a clear link between the trader’s service and the loss suffered, which remains present.

Further, it is a matter of fact that the original water pump was reused and sealed with silicone, and that the engine timing was set two teeth out. These findings represent clear workmanship failures and further support the breach of contract claim.

Second, I have consistently requested a refund, not repairs. My claim has always been based on breach of contract due to faulty workmanship. In this context, requesting remedial repair quotes is misplaced, as Section 75 does not require repair estimates where a refund is sought for a fundamental failure of service.

Third, the storage charges arose because the vehicle was disassembled for the purposes of the independent inspection requested by HSBC. Once dismantled, the vehicle could not be reassembled without carrying out repairs. The inspector advised that it would make sense for the vehicle to be repaired and reassembled in one process to avoid duplicating labour costs, rather than reassembling it temporarily and dismantling it again later. As a result, storage was unavoidable and directly attributable to HSBC’s inspection requirements, not a discretionary choice on my part.

Finally, while Section 75 aims to restore the consumer to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, this includes reasonable consequential losses arising directly from the breach and from complying with the creditor’s evidential requirements. Excluding unavoidable associated costs is inconsistent with the purpose and application of the Act.

What do people think? Am I doomed to loose this section 75 claim? Is the lesson learnt that you really aren’t protected by credit cards as we are made to believe? 

Eager2learnASAP1357

Bartox said:

Hello,

This is my first post here and I have a very similar issue to you and through my HSBC credit card.

Have you found the written communication from HSBC to be very unprofessional? I received a reply stating that I should have known better than to buy a car with a knocking sound (that was not a direct quote BTW).

HSBC have asked me to get an inspection as well and from what I can see, if you want to pursue a court claim or Section 75 claim, you have to have an inspection completed.

However, I did ponder the point made by the first reply to your post. The stance I took with the trader was under CRA 2015, I do not have to prove anything the burden of proof is upon you, but I don't know what I didn't take the same approach with HSBC.

With S.75 claims, they are jointly and severally liable for the contract and therefore, I don't see why (as I complained about my vehicle fault within the first month) I have to prove anything or spend hundreds of pounds on an inspection.

Surely, it is for HSBC/Trader to defend my allegation by providing the report and proving that the fault was not there at the time of purchase? However, if HSBC refuse, I suppose you take it to the Financial Ombudsman and say that HSBC are being unreasonable as they essentially take the place of the trader when making a S.75 claim?

Bartox said:

Hello,

This is my first post here and I have a very similar issue to you and through my HSBC credit card.

Have you found the written communication from HSBC to be very unprofessional? I received a reply stating that I should have known better than to buy a car with a knocking sound (that was not a direct quote BTW).

HSBC have asked me to get an inspection as well and from what I can see, if you want to pursue a court claim or Section 75 claim, you have to have an inspection completed.

However, I did ponder the point made by the first reply to your post. The stance I took with the trader was under CRA 2015, I do not have to prove anything the burden of proof is upon you, but I don't know what I didn't take the same approach with HSBC.

With S.75 claims, they are jointly and severally liable for the contract and therefore, I don't see why (as I complained about my vehicle fault within the first month) I have to prove anything or spend hundreds of pounds on an inspection.

Surely, it is for HSBC/Trader to defend my allegation by providing the report and proving that the fault was not there at the time of purchase? However, if HSBC refuse, I suppose you take it to the Financial Ombudsman and say that HSBC are being unreasonable as they essentially take the place of the trader when making a S.75 claim?

Bartox said:

Hello,

This is my first post here and I have a very similar issue to you and through my HSBC credit card.

Have you found the written communication from HSBC to be very unprofessional? I received a reply stating that I should have known better than to buy a car with a knocking sound (that was not a direct quote BTW).

HSBC have asked me to get an inspection as well and from what I can see, if you want to pursue a court claim or Section 75 claim, you have to have an inspection completed.

However, I did ponder the point made by the first reply to your post. The stance I took with the trader was under CRA 2015, I do not have to prove anything the burden of proof is upon you, but I don't know what I didn't take the same approach with HSBC.

With S.75 claims, they are jointly and severally liable for the contract and therefore, I don't see why (as I complained about my vehicle fault within the first month) I have to prove anything or spend hundreds of pounds on an inspection.

Surely, it is for HSBC/Trader to defend my allegation by providing the report and proving that the fault was not there at the time of purchase? However, if HSBC refuse, I suppose you take it to the Financial Ombudsman and say that HSBC are being unreasonable as they essentially take the place of the trader when making a S.75 claim?

Bartox said:

Hello,

This is my first post here and I have a very similar issue to you and through my HSBC credit card.

Have you found the written communication from HSBC to be very unprofessional? I received a reply stating that I should have known better than to buy a car with a knocking sound (that was not a direct quote BTW).

HSBC have asked me to get an inspection as well and from what I can see, if you want to pursue a court claim or Section 75 claim, you have to have an inspection completed.

However, I did ponder the point made by the first reply to your post. The stance I took with the trader was under CRA 2015, I do not have to prove anything the burden of proof is upon you, but I don't know what I didn't take the same approach with HSBC.

With S.75 claims, they are jointly and severally liable for the contract and therefore, I don't see why (as I complained about my vehicle fault within the first month) I have to prove anything or spend hundreds of pounds on an inspection.

Surely, it is for HSBC/Trader to defend my allegation by providing the report and proving that the fault was not there at the time of purchase? However, if HSBC refuse, I suppose you take it to the Financial Ombudsman and say that HSBC are being unreasonable as they essentially take the place of the trader when making a S.75 claim?

Hi! Sorry I’ve only just seen this today! Did you get an update? I fear the worst for my S75 as I believe HSBC are trying to weasel out of their responsibilities….

Jumblebumble

It seems odd to me  that an engine with 2 teeth out would work Ok for a few weeks and then cause juddering ) unless we think the belt or chain jumped)
overheating would certainly cause juddering
This may have raised HSBC's engineers suspicions about the quality of the independent garages report
it also seems extraordinary that the dealership told you that you could not use your own breakdown service to get the car to the garage. Why would they want to make you pay £1000 extra and contribute £400 which they did not need to?
However I wish you good luck in getting HSBC to pony up

Eager2learnASAP1357

Jumblebumble said:

It seems odd to me  that an engine with 2 teeth out would work Ok for a few weeks and then cause juddering ) unless we think the belt or chain jumped)
overheating would certainly cause juddering
This may have raised HSBC's engineers suspicions about the quality of the independent garages report
it also seems extraordinary that the dealership told you that you could not use your own breakdown service to get the car to the garage. Why would they want to make you pay £1000 extra and contribute £400 which they did not need to?
However I wish you good luck in getting HSBC to pony up

I initially had the same thoughts about the breakdown, but after thinking it through, I came to what I believe is the only logical conclusion: the third-party warranty. Because both the breakdown and repairs were technically covered under the warranty, the dealership insisted everything had to go through them. That clearly benefited them, as it would minimise their own costs. They were also banking on the fact that I wouldn’t know about my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

When the car broke down, they told me I had no choice but to use the warranty. However, when the car arrived at their garage, they went behind my back — despite me explicitly asking them not to — and contacted the warranty company to get approval for the repairs.

It was only after speaking to Citizens Advice that I learned I could halt this immediately, and I have proof of all of it. They also confirmed that I could pursue both the warranty and my statutory rights under the CRA 2015. Had I relied solely on the warranty, as the dealership was pressuring me to do, I would have been around £4,000 out of pocket for a head gasket and labour, since the warranty covered very little in reality (this was a quote provided by the dealership).

A local mechanic who had seen similar cases before also reinforced this. If it weren’t for the advice from Citizens Advice and that mechanic, I would have ended up paying a huge amount unnecessarily.

born_again

Jumblebumble said:

It seems odd to me  that an engine with 2 teeth out would work Ok for a few weeks and then cause juddering ) unless we think the belt or chain jumped)
overheating would certainly cause juddering
This may have raised HSBC's engineers suspicions about the quality of the independent garages report
it also seems extraordinary that the dealership told you that you could not use your own breakdown service to get the car to the garage. Why would they want to make you pay £1000 extra and contribute £400 which they did not need to?
However I wish you good luck in getting HSBC to pony up

HSBC etc do not have engineers. Hence why a S75 claim requires a 3rd party independent report.