So why a problem but S.75 say "no breach of contract"?

born_again

Re above made even worse that when quoting a post, it is edited as well, or deleted. Unlike the old system that kept quotes in original form.

eskbanker

But S.75 still say there's say no breach of contract, no cause for action, no right to a refund in whole (to get another roof fitted) or part (to get it timber clad, for instance - though it indeed should be plastered).

So I just live with this constant horrid looking thing and let CowboyzRUs get away with it???? Is that hiw consumer law and S 75 work?

S75 works on the basis that the creditor is jointly and severally liable with the supplier for contract breach or misrepresentation, but the onus is on the claimant to prove breach of contract, so it's up to you to make a strong enough case for this. If you haven't been able to find an independent expert who can document how the contract has been breached then this is likely to doom a s75 claim to failure if the creditor is asking for such proof, although strictly speaking you could take either the creditor or the supplier to court if you're confident that you can make the case without such independent support.

Alternatively you could complain to the creditor about their s75 rejection and escalate to FOS if unsatisfied…

ElsieAtOps

Well, that's all really unhelpful and rather insulting at times. I haven't deliberately tried to "engineer" or change or edit or "retrospectively alter" original posts or done anything else of the kind here at all. Certainly I'm not trying to misrepresent or change anything. I'm asking a question, that's all. Nothing has changed, it's just carried on and got worse.

I don't even get notified of replies to this or other threads by the way.

So thank you to whoever merged the posts - I'm not an IT person, I'm struggling just to work out how to do anything on a forum like this, never mind to "link" things and whatever else I should have done. I was hoping for some positive input and explanation, though, as to this breach question.

To clarify, I apparently engaged (turns out a well-known firm of no win no fee) solicitors via a very long-winded process starting with my legal helpline in the house insurance. I signed a lot of forms before they would consider my case, it certainly seemed like engaging them to me - via the legal helplines and sub-advisers I thought, but also definitely with personal liability too. And a very time-consuming process involving huge amounts of submitted written and photographic evidence and intermediaries it was too - all of whom were happy that I had a case. But ultimately they (the solicitors) then advised me to pursue S.75 because it costs me nothing. A lot of buck passing and stress. And I wonder, though nothing was overtly said, if they also were considering the breach of contract issue - and yet every adviser and organisational step below that were utterly certain that I had a good and clear case.

CAB and others also push me towards the S.75 route.

But if there's no breach of contract then the legal route is also moot, yes? This is what I want advice on, please. I do not understand why they are saying this when the evidence seems so clear cut to me; and to many others. What am I, and they, missing?

They are all saying that the consumer rights position is clear, that I have the legal remedies, that the installer has exhausted them - but yet ultimately at the buck-stopping phase it's suddenly decided that there is no contractual breach, so no prospect of success (at least via S.75, and I can't afford legal representation and court action if that's the possible case either).

I don't understand what I have to prove when the saga has gone on so long and it's visibly there right in front of one's eyes, and the installer has even admitted problems and said themselves that it's not going to succeed as a plastered ceiling.

What do I need an expert to say to demonstrate this breach of contract which apparently hasn't happened yet seems literally obvious when seen?

When asked, apart from the fact that noone seemingly wants to do this kind if work around here - and I have tried, several times - none of them can or will say anything except, to paraphrase, that it's blinking obvious: the plaster's always cracking and shouldn't, and the installer can't stop it. To this end, noone wants to comment further.

It's also the case that because there's a replacement warm roof, none of them (RICS, roofers, others) say that they know enough about such products to comment: so another brick wall which I'm hitting. I have consulted other companies which install them. They all say also that there may be something wring and are happy to take my money to put their product on: but won't put anything in writing for legal purposes about the existing one.

I will be taking the S.75 response to the Ombudsman, by the way - but if there's anything I can do to strengthen the case first then I should surely do it.

Boohoo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81949377#Comment_81949377

To follow a thread you have to click on the flag/banner next to the thread title which is next to the circle with 3 dots inside it.

Aylesbury_Duck

Then you're back to the two options given earlier: Complain to the credit provider, going to the ombudsman if that process is exhausted unsuccessfully, or sue the installer in court.

Grumpy_chap

If the no-win-no-fee Solicitors did not take the case and directed the OP to follow S75, that probably indicates that the Solicitor assessed a low probability of success but nothing to lose trying S75 as there is no cost and the OP might achieve success as the burden of proof might be lower

Okell

@ElsieAtOps - when you say "… But S.75 still say there's say no breach of contract, no cause for action, no right to a refund in whole (to get another roof fitted) or part (to get it timber clad, for instance - though it indeed should be plastered)…" I assume that by "s75" you are referring to your credit card provider?

You say you provided a lot of evidence and reports showing that the work had not - in the words of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - been performed with reasonable care and skill by the contractor.

Did your credit card provider give you an explanation as to why they had come to the conclusion that the work had been performed with reasonable care and skill and that therefore there was no breach of contract?

This might sound like a stupid question, but are you 100% certain that your credit card provider treated your claim as a s75 claim against them and not as a chargeback.?

I ask because - as I understand it - card providers have a very annoying habit of defaulting most if not all payment disputes to a chargeback rather than a s75 - even if you have specifically told them you want to make a s75 claim against them.

So have they specifically told you that a s75 claim has failed?

If they have not treated it as a s75 claim get back to them and tell them that that is what you want.

If they have treated it as a s75 claim then your options are pretty much as @eskbanker outlined above: you either complain to the FOS about your credit card provider's rejection of your s75 claim, or you sue (jointly or severally) the supplier/installer and your credit card provider. But if you go down the court route you will have to consider limiting your claim to a max of £10k otherwise you may end up liable to pay the other sides' costs if you lose. (I'm not even sure if you can artificially limit your claim to £10k if your true losses are more than that).

Also, if you go down the court route the onus will be on you still to prove that there has been a breach of contract. If your NWNF solicitors backed out of going down the legal route, that would strongly suggest that they didn't think you had a very strong case. (NWNF solicitors will only take a case on if they are pretty certain they will win - otherwise they won't get paid)

And what about the guarantee? I thought you said the guarantee was insurance backed. What have they said? Or not said.

[NB - I'm sure you already know this but s75 refers to s75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which makes a credit provider jointly and severally liable with a trader if a consumer has a legal claim against a trader. It was intended to allow consumers to sue credit providers in court if a consumer had a legal claim against a trader. At some point credit card providers decided to set up their own dispute processes to allow them to consider s75 claims before they got to court.]

Okell

@ElsieAtOps - "Well, that's all really unhelpful and rather insulting at times. I haven't deliberately tried to "engineer" or change or edit or "retrospectively alter" original posts or done anything else of the kind here at all. Certainly I'm not trying to misrepresent or change anything. I'm asking a question, that's all. Nothing has changed, it's just carried on and got worse…"

Just to clarify. I think what might have happened is that when @soolin merged the two threads yesterday, all of the comments (not just yours) from the old thread were flagged as having been edited yesterday.

I think that's why others have concluded that you must have retrospectively edited the original thread. Looking at the old thread I don't think you did. I think it was an artifact created by the thread merge.

The platform that hosts this forum has a lot of faults unfortunately

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81950023#Comment_81950023

If that's what's happened, then I owe you an apology, @ElsieAtOps, sorry.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81950082#Comment_81950082

Likewise, though I am sure no-one intended any upset or insult.