Section 75 small print

shopophobic

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

MyRealNameToo

shopophobic said:

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

It's not that black and white... there must be an unbroken link between the debtor the creditor and supplier. An additional cardholder isnt the debtor, only the primary cardholder is, but as long as the contract with the supplier is with the primary cardholder the secondary cardholder can pay with their card and not actually break the triangle. 

Obviously with most in person shopping you just get a receipt and so the assumption is the payer rather than debtor is the contracting party but some have successfully convinced the FOS that the primary cardholder was in contract with the supplier. With online shopping it maybe easier, you just need to make sure the order is in the name of the primary cardholder 

born_again

shopophobic said:

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

Depends on the Bank, some do & some don't.

shopophobic

MyRealNameToo said:

shopophobic said:

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

It's not that black and white... there must be an unbroken link between the debtor the creditor and supplier. An additional cardholder isnt the debtor, only the primary cardholder is, but as long as the contract with the supplier is with the primary cardholder the secondary cardholder can pay with their card and not actually break the triangle. 

Obviously with most in person shopping you just get a receipt and so the assumption is the payer rather than debtor is the contracting party but some have successfully convinced the FOS that the primary cardholder was in contract with the supplier. With online shopping it maybe easier, you just need to make sure the order is in the name of the primary cardholder 

Sadly as we were unaware of this, most purchases were made in my name (additional cardholder), with my name on the orders. American Express have confirmed section 75 cannot be used as the order is in my name. Unfortunately for us, that's lots of items we thought we were covered for, we're actually not. Hopefully it's only the one very expensive mistake and nothing else develops a fault we would like to claim for.

MyRealNameToo

shopophobic said:

MyRealNameToo said:

shopophobic said:

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

It's not that black and white... there must be an unbroken link between the debtor the creditor and supplier. An additional cardholder isnt the debtor, only the primary cardholder is, but as long as the contract with the supplier is with the primary cardholder the secondary cardholder can pay with their card and not actually break the triangle. 

Obviously with most in person shopping you just get a receipt and so the assumption is the payer rather than debtor is the contracting party but some have successfully convinced the FOS that the primary cardholder was in contract with the supplier. With online shopping it maybe easier, you just need to make sure the order is in the name of the primary cardholder 

Sadly as we were unaware of this, most purchases were made in my name (additional cardholder), with my name on the orders. American Express have confirmed section 75 cannot be used as the order is in my name. Unfortunately for us, that's lots of items we thought we were covered for, we're actually not. Hopefully it's only the one very expensive mistake and nothing else develops a fault we would like to claim for.

S75 only mirrors your rights with the retailer to bank, doesnt give any extra rights just an extra firm you can claim from. 

There are scenarios where S75 is useful, like an overseas seller, if the seller goes bust etc but in many circumstances there are no real additional benefits. In fact it can be the opposite, when our freezer was faulty the retailer sent and engineer to look at it whereas without doubt a bank would have required me to purchase my own report from an engineer and submit it to them. 

I accept there are occasions when a merchant is being obstructive where having a second option would be nice. So what's the actual issue and why not deal with it via the merchant?

shopophobic

MyRealNameToo said:

shopophobic said:

MyRealNameToo said:

shopophobic said:

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

It's not that black and white... there must be an unbroken link between the debtor the creditor and supplier. An additional cardholder isnt the debtor, only the primary cardholder is, but as long as the contract with the supplier is with the primary cardholder the secondary cardholder can pay with their card and not actually break the triangle. 

Obviously with most in person shopping you just get a receipt and so the assumption is the payer rather than debtor is the contracting party but some have successfully convinced the FOS that the primary cardholder was in contract with the supplier. With online shopping it maybe easier, you just need to make sure the order is in the name of the primary cardholder 

Sadly as we were unaware of this, most purchases were made in my name (additional cardholder), with my name on the orders. American Express have confirmed section 75 cannot be used as the order is in my name. Unfortunately for us, that's lots of items we thought we were covered for, we're actually not. Hopefully it's only the one very expensive mistake and nothing else develops a fault we would like to claim for.

S75 only mirrors your rights with the retailer to bank, doesnt give any extra rights just an extra firm you can claim from. 

There are scenarios where S75 is useful, like an overseas seller, if the seller goes bust etc but in many circumstances there are no real additional benefits. In fact it can be the opposite, when our freezer was faulty the retailer sent and engineer to look at it whereas without doubt a bank would have required me to purchase my own report from an engineer and submit it to them. 

I accept there are occasions when a merchant is being obstructive where having a second option would be nice. So what's the actual issue and why not deal with it via the merchant?

The merchant is refusing to honour a 5 year guarantee (we've had the item 2.5 years) by stating we have caused the fault (not true). Section 75 was our next step, not sure what we can do now.

born_again

shopophobic said:

MyRealNameToo said:

shopophobic said:

MyRealNameToo said:

shopophobic said:

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

It's not that black and white... there must be an unbroken link between the debtor the creditor and supplier. An additional cardholder isnt the debtor, only the primary cardholder is, but as long as the contract with the supplier is with the primary cardholder the secondary cardholder can pay with their card and not actually break the triangle. 

Obviously with most in person shopping you just get a receipt and so the assumption is the payer rather than debtor is the contracting party but some have successfully convinced the FOS that the primary cardholder was in contract with the supplier. With online shopping it maybe easier, you just need to make sure the order is in the name of the primary cardholder 

Sadly as we were unaware of this, most purchases were made in my name (additional cardholder), with my name on the orders. American Express have confirmed section 75 cannot be used as the order is in my name. Unfortunately for us, that's lots of items we thought we were covered for, we're actually not. Hopefully it's only the one very expensive mistake and nothing else develops a fault we would like to claim for.

S75 only mirrors your rights with the retailer to bank, doesnt give any extra rights just an extra firm you can claim from. 

There are scenarios where S75 is useful, like an overseas seller, if the seller goes bust etc but in many circumstances there are no real additional benefits. In fact it can be the opposite, when our freezer was faulty the retailer sent and engineer to look at it whereas without doubt a bank would have required me to purchase my own report from an engineer and submit it to them. 

I accept there are occasions when a merchant is being obstructive where having a second option would be nice. So what's the actual issue and why not deal with it via the merchant?

The merchant is refusing to honour a 5 year guarantee (we've had the item 2.5 years) by stating we have caused the fault (not true). Section 75 was our next step, not sure what we can do now.

Independent 3rd party report on the problem.
Then possibly court claim.

But really depends on the T/C of warranty & report.

Grumpy_chap

What type of item is it?
What is the nature of the fault?

shopophobic

Grumpy_chap said:

What type of item is it?
What is the nature of the fault?

Sorry, should have given more info. It's an ottoman bed and the top of the ottoman base has broken in 2 areas (the top of the base that's underneath the mattress).  We're not new to ottoman beds, and the other bed in our household is 14 years old and has never had anything like this happen to it.
The retailer (also the manufacturer) is saying this can only develop by using unnecessary force. For context it's our daughter's bed and she's past the age of jumping up and down on her bed for amusement. The bed cost us £858, so not a cheap one.

eskbanker

shopophobic said:

Unfortunately I've just found out the hard way that Section 75 does not apply to additional cardholders. 

Beware if you're not the primary cardholder, you DO NOT get any redress through Section 75.

I consider myself to be well versed on my rights, but had no idea this was in the small print of credit card terms and conditions.

Just to be clear, section 75 has nothing to do with credit card terms and conditions - it's your statutory rights under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and isn't something that the card provider can control or influence, so it's that legislation (rather than the card provider) which requires the unbroken debtor-creditor-supplier chain referred to above.

A_Geordie

Just to add some legal context to eskbanker's post, the reason why additional cardholders are not protected is because s75 applies only to the "debtor" who has a claim and the definition in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 defines a "debtor" as the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement. That essentially means the account holder and not the additional cardholders.

I believe the FOS has on regular occasion rejected claims from additional cardholders and I think this point has now been settled by the Court of Appeal in Cooper v The Freedom Travel Group and Bank of Scotland Plc (trading as Halifax) back in 2022.

The facts of the case are simple, Mr Cooper held a credit card account with Halifax and booked a holiday for his family. Mrs Cooper was injured on holiday and then looked to sue Halifax as a beneficiary of the holiday claiming she fell within the definition of the debtor because she benefited from the credit card used by her husband. The Court focused on the definition of "debtor" and held that it should be interpreted narrowly such that the "debtor" does not extend to third party beneficiaries and one of the reasons being that the beneficiary must have the contractual right to defer the payment of the debt.

Should probably point in that case Mrs Cooper was not an additional cardholder but the principle nevertheless applies in the OP's case here. Mrs Cooper was not party to the credit agreement and so she could not have the contractual right to defer payment of the debt. 

Similarly, in the case of additional cardholders, they only have the benefit of using the credit and are not a party to the credit agreement, which would be the primary cardholder and so they have no contractual right to defer the payment of the debt. 

However, if the additional cardholder was a contractual party to the agreement as joint holders, then s75 would indeed apply. There is also a potential argument that if the additional cardholder purchases something on behalf of the primary cardholder by using the additional card, one could argue that the additional cardholder was acting as agent of the primary cardholder in that instance and therefore s75 applies but I would stress that this scenario would be very fact specific.