Sorry Bankfodder what have I missed? I thought I had answered everything? In summary if JAJA do not proceed with a S75 claim we will proceed to the FOS with a complaint. It is likely that Techi grass will continue to seek the remaining balance (we have already had some letters from a debt recovery firm where we have advised there is a S75 claim currently in progress) where we defend and provide evidence of a breach of contract and quotations to make good should the matter end up in small claims court or we will bring action against Techigrass directly and claim for costs of making the works good. Is there anything I have missed or not made clear? Thanks

Sorry, we did not ask them to hold the payment they released it after they declined the chargeback, they then requested payment and then we registered the S75 claim, they place the request for payment from us hold, so I presuem its on hold in regards to asking us to make payment not JAJA holding the payment from the other merchant. The amount is still registered on our card but the payment for it is on hold (and interest) If nothing its an interesting case! lol

Sorry all, the transaction is on hold hence we have actually not paid anything yet, does that make sense? If JAJA fail to proceed with a Section 75 and then charge us we will then start action agaist both JAJA and the contractor.

Currently we have paid nothing for the works so currently nothing to reclaim back, if that changes we will review options thanks

Thanks all, yes those are the details and contractor, which is a franchise of Truelawn. Yes, we will look down a small claims courts once this situation is settled RE S75 and provide 3 quotations for making good. I will write again to JAJA and explain clearly again that this is a breach of contract under S75 and the CRA and allow 14 days for a response but escalating FOS on the 15th day. Sorry, we just did not expect to get what we paid for on this, we made sure all three quotations were the same before proceeding with written specifications. Thanks again everyone for view points.

Thanks Maxman, RE: Visa or Mastercard, I dont think that would be a concren of the consumer under CRA regrdless? Who JAJA choose to use is there business and I dont think it matters under Section 75 to the consumer.

Many thanks. Yes, it is a credit card (Previously Post Office Credit card) they rejected a chargeback request so we escalated to Section 75 claim. I have spoken many times on the phone with them and made clear it’s a claim of breach of contract, they just repeat the script each time that they need a report that states the work that has been undertaken breaches industry standards despite me advising them ‘standards’ are subjective and not covered by any regulatory act, it’s madness. I can only assume they are doing everything possibly in an attempt we will give up. Thanks again.

Sorry, to clarify. 1. Value of contract for the supply of materials and service was £4300 2. Deposit of £2150 (in dispute) was paid via credit card prior to works (JAJA) remaining outstanding balance registered as in dispute with contractor since matter came to light. 3. Contractor was Trulawn: Artificial Grass however, we later understood this was a franchise with works undertaken by Techi Grass LTD who provided us the invoice. 4. No quotation yet received to make good, but we estimate this would be around £2K as it would involve stripping everything back, re excavating and installing the correct subbase we required, but given the time frame here we would settle for a settlement of a reduced final invoice as its getting stressful for my family to the value of this making good. BankFodder, JAJA have advised that for them (JAJA) to have a valid claim we must provide a written expert report at our cost (£750) to prove that the works that were undertaken either do or do not meet industry standards. I have advised JAJA on several occasions now that this claim under Section 75 is a contractual dispute, not an industry standards dispute, as these works do not fall under regulatory act such as Building Control or Planning. Whilst here have been goods and services provided (not disputed) they are not the goods or the service we paid for, it really is that simply and I cannot understand the approach JAJA is taking seeing as we have already provided a Grounds Investigation report stating the make up of the sub base. This is the summary of the letter I sent JAJA back in March with all evidence attached The claim made under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has already previously provided you with sufficient evidence that there has been a material breach of contract in regard to the goods and service provided by Technigrass Ltd on 20th September 2022 where this places JAJA jointly and severally responsible for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by a retailer or trader. In summary, I remind you of the context of the material breach of the contract; • Technigrass Ltd Failure to install the agreed specification dated 9th September 2022 upon which the quotation and deposit was paid, forming the basis of the contract. • Technigrass Ltd Failure to evacuate to the depth of install (60-80MM) as specified within the quotation and advised in the bespoke methods of works • Technigrass Ltd Failure to install 48m2 type 1 MOT aggregate for the subbase as specified with the quotation and advised in the bespoke methods of works • Technigrass Ltd Failure to inform me as client that Technigrass Ltd had changed this agreed specification on which the contract was based and make continued demands for full payment in full knowledge that the agreed contractual specification has not been installed since 11.10.22 I provide attached clear evidence that the agreed specification, upon which the contract is based confirms the following contractual/material breaches in regard to goods/service provided by Technigrass Ltd; Appendix 1 – Standard method of works (Extract of main proposal of works dated 12/09/22 (full contractual proposal also attached) Step 4: Installation of a type 1 limestone to a depth of 40- 60mm. Has failed to be undertake and goods/materials provided as per contractual specification. Appendix 2 – Bespoke method of works (Extract of main proposal of works dated 12/09/22 (also attached) 48m2 area to be excavated to a maximum depth of 60-80mm where applicable. Has failed to be undertake as per the contractual speciation (See Appendix 4 Investigation Report) Install 48m2 type 1 MOT aggregate. Allow for 40mm coverage to provide an average of 30mm consolidated surface across the 48m2. Has failed to be undertake and goods/materials provided as per contractual specification (See Appendix 4 Investigation Report) Appendix 3 – Confirmation of Breach of contract by Technigrass Ltd (email dated 11/10/22 and highlighted extract) “I can confirm that the on-site decision to use Grano only rather than combined with MOT type 1 was made purely to ease the installation process” Technigrass Ltd provided written confirmation on 11th October 2022 that a change of specification to the contract had been under, I and can confirm this was without my prior knowledge or written/verbal agreement in advance, should this had been provided it would have been refused. Appendix 4 – Investigation Report D** Contractors (Previously provided on 06/12/22, highlighted extract) “The make up from formation level was found to be a layer of Geotextile fabric and a 45-50mm thickness of 6mm down granite dust. No type one roadstone was present.” Provides clear evidence from the report of material breach of the contractual specification listed in Appendix 3 and further detailed within this correspondence, and correspondences previously provided. I feel I have been reasonable in providing you with more than sufficient and detailed evidence to enable you to escalate this matter and remind you that JAJA remain jointly responsible under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, should you still feel that JAJA require a more detailed engineers report I am happy to facilitate access for this with advance notice of 5 working days but this would need to be arranged and costed by JAJA, but given the evidence provided I can not see of any benefit giving the evidence above and attached and that you now have clear evidence that the Technigrass Ltd has admitted a contractual change to the agreed and contractual specification for the goods and service that should have been provided.

Thanks Manxman, But if they are required to prove the products and service were installed as per the contract satisfy the consumer rights act, how would the do this without an independent report? Surely they’d need this to prove there was no claim, and as such would have to pay and commision one to prove as such?

Thanks Manxman. Your assumptions are correct, the report provided already confirms the contractual sub base was not present upon inspection. I will return to them and advise given the time frames that this contract was based on a supply of goods and a service (one cannot be done done without the other) we believe they are liable for the cost of any additional reports they deem they require to proceed under consume rights act as we be the evidence already supplied confirms a breach of contact against the specification that should have bern supplied and undertaken. we will extend the offer to arrange the report but the cost must be met by the card company regardless of outcome. theberengersniper The contractor has already confirmed in writing they changed the sub base to ease the installation for them (saved them moving 4 tones of type 1 road stone and excavating down further to allow for it), so I cannot see how a judge would allow a written specification of a contract to be breached without the clients permission because it was easier for the contractor, would open a can of worms for contractors to agree to supply and undertake works and then change to suit them as they wish. thank you everyone for assistance and view points.

Yes it’s been registered as a section 75 Claim, they declined the charge back, to be honest we have little faith in them. We are seeking a refund (50% was paid through the credit card and we have already asked the contractor to address this which they have ignored), it is likely that the contractor will pursue through further through small claims courts regardless where we will defend and issue a counter claim for remedial work cost etc It is the cost of the expert witness report we are really trying to get the bottom of, if this cost lays with us or the card company given it was reports to the credit card provider within 6 months and the claim is for failure to delivered contractual goods and service. many thanks

Sorry that was what the card company said they would do, not I.

Thanks Manxman for your detailed response. I can confirm the purchase was for the supply (goods) and service (install) of; 'Supply and Install 48m2 artificial grass (rear garden).' We wished for a specific type and depth of of sub base and ensured this was detailed on the quotation (and all quotations we received) and we proceeded with the purchase on the basis that the following would be supplied and installed; 'Install 48m2 type 1 MOT aggregate. Allow for 40mm coverage to provide an average of 30mm consolidated surface across the 48m2.' The contractor, without informing us as client or seeking any form of approval, decided to proceed and did not install this product (goods) which was clearly detailed in the specification of the quotation which formed the basis of the contract and is further referred to in the contractors 'Standard Method of works' within the quotation provided. This was challenged with the contractor upon it being discovered, but only met with demands for full payment, and then escalated to the credit card company who facilitated the payment for the goods/service. My point of view is that we wanted a specific type of specification for our subbase (and detailed it as such), and this was not provided. We have supplied the credit card company with a grounds investigation report from a grounds contractor stating that; 'The make up from formation level was found to be a layer of Geotextile fabric and a 45-50mm thickness of 6mm down granite dust. No type of road stone was present' and a further email confirmation from the contractor confirming that they changed the specification of the subbase to 'ease the process of the installation' when challenged after the works had been completed. This is why we feel we have been more than reasonable providing the credit card provider enough evidence to proceed already under Section 75 as a breach of contract and don't feel the liability to pay for a expert witness lies with us if they require one for their prosecution of the merchant under Section 75. Could you kindly share your thoughts on if this would fall under the CRA? I need to respond back to them Monday ideally stating our final position. Many thanks

Thans dx Can I assume the CRA is interlinked to the Section 75 of the Cosumer Credit Act? As the goods (which formed part of the service/contract) were advised to the card provider within 6 moths of the payment were not as decribed within the quotation that formed the contract then the liability now lies with the creditor to prove this not I as a consumer? As such if they feel a report is rquired its is their burden to provide this or to cover the full cost of raise requested report regardless of if this is sucessfull or not? Many thanks

Thanks could you advise how I would address this with the card provider and under which secion of consumer law I would need to review and quote? Details: Works/goods/servies completed: 04/10/22 Dispute raised with credit card company: 20/10/22 Written confirmation of claim under Section 75 provided to card provide: 17/01/23 Many thanks for your asstiance so far.