3 months ago,

I hired a plumber to fit my new bathroom.

We agreed it would cost £2000 for the labour.

I wanted to pay a deposit on my credit card to get s75 consumer credit act protection,

but he told me he did not have the credit card machine with him and he would bring it another day.

During the work, problems arose, but was assured by the plumber he would deal with it- but he never did.

The tiling was not flat and the shower door hadn’t been fixed correctly.

He finally brought his credit card machine the day before he finished and I paid £100 on my card.

On his last day the plumber demanded that he be paid as he would come back on Monday to fix the problems,

but he never turned up and he has since closed down the company.

I contacted my credit card provider,

Natwest, to make a s75 claim and they declined it.

They said that the three-party relationship with Natwest, me and the plumber, had not been established before the work began and that because I had known about the defects before I made a payment on my credit card, that to would invalidate s75 claim!

However,

my understanding is that if I pay for any part of a bill (for a service or goods) with my credit card, I would be covered.

The legislation does not state when the payment needs to be paid,

only that it can be for any part of the bill.

But the point is I wanted to pay for the builder on day one of the works to get s75 protection, but because he was so slow in bringing his credit card machine to me, it was significantly delayed.

Also, how would this be different to say another person in the same situation agreeing to only pay after all the work had been done and on the last day the plumber demands to be paid and promises to come back the following day to rectify the mistakes, and he doesn’t as he goes bust? Surely there would still be s75 protection?

I think this is really unfair. Does anyone have any advice on this? Many thanks

You didn't pay on credit card BEFORE the work started. You paid AFTER you were aware of the problems.

Its like having a car crash and the day after you buy insurance and expect them to pay.

You cant claim retrospectively

I'm not claiming retrospectively, as the plumber said he would come back to fix the problems.

I did not expect to have to go down this path!

If they refuse, and you dont accept what they say then you have to start their complaints procedure. They then have 8 weeks to reach an amicable conclusion. You can then go downt he route of the FOS etc once 8 weeks is up or you recieve their final response.

NatWest talking BS as usual I see.

dx

Also, have you tried looking for the plumber? See if he has any assets. You could start legal action on him personally, depending on what type of company he held.

However, it doesnt matter when you paid the 100 to the builder. WHat matters is that 100 was paid on the card. You are then covered by section 75. Escalate it to a manager. Not the min wage reps that deal with the initial claim/call.

The claim under sectin 75 is against the bank not the plumber, so the plumbers current status should be irrelevant. That is the banks problem.

75

Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(1)

If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or © has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

The three party relationship comes under section 12.b (b)

a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(b) and is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or

They really do not have a leg to stand on, you must speak to someone ore senior and threaten with the ombudsman IMO.

Also, have you tried looking for the plumber? See if he has any assets. You could start legal action on him personally, depending on what type of company he held.

 

However, it doesn't matter when you paid the 100 to the builder. What matters is that 100 was paid on the card. You are then covered by section 75. Escalate it to a manager. Not the min wage reps that deal with the initial claim/call.

Re the plumber, yes I could do that, but I know what a long drawn out matter that could be- so s75 seems a much better prospect.

Yes, that precisely my point which you to make!

The claim under sectin 75 is against the bank not the plumber, so the plumbers current status should be irrelevant. That is the banks problem.

 

75

Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(1)

If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or © has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

 

The three party relationship comes under section 12.b (b)

a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(b) and is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or

 

They really do not have a leg to stand on, you must speak to someone ore senior and threaten with the ombudsman IMO.

thanks for that- out of interest are you a lawyer or a private person who knows the law?

no just someone that can read the consumer credit act section 75.

which you can yourself too

Re the plumber, yes I could do that, but I know what a long drawn out matter that could be- so s75 seems a much better prospect.

 

Yes, that precisely my point which you to make!

 

 

 

thanks for that- out of interest are you a lawyer or a private person who knows the law?

The latter, just like many on here.

Section 12(b) and © is were this claim falls down unfortunately.

There was no debtor creditor supplier contract formed BEFORE the work commenced

I don't agree, 12 b says future relationship or there had already been off and acceptance of a payment by credit before in any case, so the relationship was already established.

Payments are often made after a service has been provided.

I think what they are trying to contend was that there was no breach of contract because you accepted the service with the faults before you paid.

With respect, this is not like an insurance, the creditor is jointly responsible for the bargain.

Exactly, otherwise paying for most services would not be valid.

I don't agree, 12 b says future relationship or there had already been off and acceptance of a payment by credit before in any case, so the relationship was already established.

Payments are often made after a service has been provided.

 

I think what they are trying to contend was that there was no breach of contract because you accepted the service with the faults before you paid.

 

With respect, this is not like an insurance, the creditor is jointly responsible for the bargain.

With respect,

there was a breach of contract,

because he said he would come back and fix the work

- I did not accept the service with the fault before I paid.

I only paid as he demanded it and promised that he would return to fix the issues.

a think DB is agreeing you do have a case?

With respect,

there was a breach of contract,

because he said he would come back and fix the work

- I did not accept the service with the fault before I paid.

 

I only paid as he demanded it and promised that he would return to fix the issues.

Yes indeed, I said that is what they will be contending.

The breach can still be proven under the SOG suitable for purpose provisions.

Personally I am sure you have an excellent case. But only my opinion.

thanks again for all the help.

One quick question, if under s75 the CC provider is equally liable- does that make them liable under the consumer rights act 2015?

whatever you could get the retailer for they are equally liable

thanks again for all the help.

 

One quick question, if under s75 the CC provider is equally liable- does that make them liable under the consumer rights act 2015?

The protection comes under the CCA and this is what should be quoted.

the retailer is acting as the creditors agent in the credit sale and is equally responsible and accountable.

I disagree (to some extent!)

The CRA doesn’t impose any direct responsibility on the credit card company.

The credit card company’s only (s.75) responsibility is if the retailer is in breach. If the breach follows from the CRA then the route to take is to establish how the retailer is in breach, and then use the CCA for the credit card company. This may mean getting an independent report on a product (if a fault occurs after 6 months).

The breach is the failure of the contractor to perform his contractual obligation, this is the same cause of action as the claim against the trader himself(like claim). This is covered by the consumer credit act 1974 section 75 in its entirety.

I am unsure what your reference to the credit reference agency has to do with this?

The hazard of abbreviations.

The discussion was of the Consumer Credit Act vs. the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was what I’d abbreviated to CRA, given that was what was being discussed.

The hazard of abbreviations.

The discussion was of the Consumer Credit Act vs. the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was what I’d abbreviated to CRA, given that was what was being discussed.

Ah I see. No this particular protection comes under the CCA. The CRA may be useful if there is an argument regarding the breach itself.