Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Section 75 and Charge Back..>Whats the difference and how to utilise them


stu007
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2465 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

SECTION 75 (Only)

 

Protection when buying Goods using a Credit Card** - Section 75 Claim

(** or any method of Finance covered by the Consumer Credit Act)

 

By law, if you've spent between £100 and £30,000, providers should refund you if there's a problem with your purchase. But this vital consumer protection, known as "section 75" claims after the relevant clause in credit law, can be denied to customers, even after a refund has gone through.

 

This is due to a little-known loophole that means section 75 claims can be reversed.

 

Other borrowers complain that drawn-out compensation claims have left them without any goods or their money back under Section 75, due to the lack of a legal time limit when resolving claims.

 

The Financial*Ombudsman*Service, which said it receives a significant amount of Section 75 complaints by consumers each year, said that even savvy consumers commonly misunderstand when they are due compensation.

 

Common misconceptions include that you are not protected if you use your credit card abroad you are and that you must need to take the retailer to court before making a claim you don't.

 

Your refund rights under section 75

 

Shoppers who use a credit card are protected by laws dating back to the Seventies, which apply to goods or services bought online, in person or over the phone.

 

Under Section 75 of the*consumer credit*Act, the credit provider is equally liable with the provider of goods or services where there is a breach of contract or misrepresentation.

 

When a credit card provider makes a refund, it is surprisingly common that it doesn't claw back any money from the retailer, essentially this is because the credit card company may regard it as more effort than it's worth.

 

But what banks don't tell you is that any reversed transaction can be charged back, if a retailer raises a dispute.

 

There is also no legal time limit for card providers to consider claims, meaning a Section 75 dispute can last several months.... or even years.

 

However, in practice, as card providers are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, then they must respond to complaints in accordance with their policy.

 

So if there is no response then it is best to raise the issue as a complaint to try to force a response.

 

Many Section 75 claims turn into lengthy disputes - especially where it is difficult for consumers to prove how their purchases have failed to be supplied as promised.

 

Section 75 Rules

 

Under these conditions, the lender will have equal liability for misrepresentation or breach of contract by the merchant.

 

Purchases must be between £100 and £30,000

 

Goods or services must be bought using a credit card - or any purchase involving pre-agreed credit, such as a point-of-sale loan or some store cards

 

The amount of credit provided to the consumer towards the purchase must not exceed £25,000

 

There is no time limit to make a claim, but the statute of limitations is six years (five in Scotland) - the deadline for pursuing a claim in the courts

 

Added rules around section 75

 

The retailer has 45 days to dispute a reversed transaction, and a further 60 days to gather evidence

 

There is no time limit for card providers to consider your claim, although you can take your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) after 30 days

 

Claims might be rejected if there's no direct relationship between the borrower and the shop...if you pay money into a PayPal account, then buy an item and pay for it using the payment platform.

 

Protection when buying Goods.pdf

 

 

 

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chargeback (Only)

 

How to Use Chargeback - (The value is Less than £100)

 

What is the Chargeback Scheme?

 

Chargeback allows you to ask your Card Provider/Bank to reverse a transaction if there's a problem with something you've purchased using your credit or debit card.

 

Chargeback is not enshrined in law but is a voluntary agreement between credit card providers and card issuers who set the Scheme Rules, which participating Banks have subscribed to.

 

Chargeback is not covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as it is a voluntary scheme. (see above)

 

Chargeback can be used in circumstances where you have paid for goods or services and the value of those goods or services is Less than £100. (and cannot be claimed from your card provider using Section 75)

 

The following Cards offer Chargeback Protection:

 

Credit Cards

Visa

Mastercard

American Express

 

Debit Cards

Visa Mastercard

Visa Electron

Maestro

Visa

 

Pre Paid Cards

Visa

Mastercard

 

When can chargeback be used?

 

Chargeback can be used in cases where:

 

--Goods or Services you purchased don’t arrive.

--Goods or Services you purchased arrive damaged.

--Goods or services you purchased are not as described.

--The company you purchased Goods or Services from ceases trading.

 

What are the Limitations on a Chargeback Claim?

 

--For a claim to be successful there must be a Breach of Contract.

--There may be Time Limits for a Claim to be made so always ask your Card Provider/Bank for clarification.

 

Are there any Time Limits on making a Chargeback Claim? YES

 

To make a Chargeback claim you will need to contact your Card Provider/Bank within their time limit.

 

Generally it is 120 days, which starts from the day that you become aware of an issue with the Goods or Services purchased.

 

There is also an overall cut off point of 540 days for Visa Chargeback. Therefore, your deadline for requesting a Chargeback is 120 days from discovering you have an issue, or 540 days from the transaction date, whichever comes first.

 

How to make a Chargeback Claim

 

The first thing you need to do is to try to resolve the issue with the retailer/merchant by contacting them for a refund and if the retailer/merchant refuses the refund you can then start a Chargeback Claim.

 

Ensure you have all your evidence then contact your Card Provider/Bank and inform them you wish to make a claim through the Chargeback Scheme.

 

Give full details of the specific transaction you wish the refund on via Chargeback.

 

Provide details of any correspondence you had with the seller/merchant to try to get your money refunded including letters, emails etc.

 

Some Banks may ask you to complete a claim form.

 

Be aware that when Contacting your Card Provider/Bank via there Customer Service Department they may not be aware of nor understand what a Chargeback Claim is. If this happens just be polite and ask to speak to a supervisor.

 

What if my Chargeback Claim is Rejected?

 

If your claim has been rejected and you feel the decision is unfair complain to the Card Provider/Bank.

 

If they still refuse your claim then you have six months in which to take your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service who may or may not overturn the Card Provider/Banks decision.

 

Be aware that if your claim is rejected as the Chargeback Scheme is not a Legal Requirement you will be unable to take your Bank or Card Provider to Court to Claim the refund back.

 

How to use Chargeback.pdf

 

 

 

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75A

 

F175A Further provision for liability of creditor for breaches by supplier

 

(1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

 

(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—

(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,

(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,

©that the supplier is insolvent, or

(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.

 

(3)The steps referred to in subsection (2)(d) need not include litigation.

 

(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.

 

(5)In this section “linked credit agreement” means a regulated consumer credit agreement which serves exclusively to finance an agreement for the supply of specific goods or the provision of a specific service and where—

(a)the creditor uses the services of the supplier in connection with the preparation or making of the credit agreement, or

(b)the specific goods or provision of a specific service are explicitly specified in the credit agreement.

 

(6)This section does not apply where—

(a)the cash value of the goods or service is £30,000 or less,

(b)the linked credit agreement is for credit which exceeds £60,260 [and is not a residential renovation agreement], or

©the linked credit agreement is entered into by the debtor wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.

 

Section 75 Legislation.pdf

 

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2465 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...