Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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


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

 

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.

 

PROTEC~1.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

 

[F175AFurther 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 [F2and 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...