Success! ...but a loose end An Update: Heard nothing, so I made a formal complaint to Lloyds. They called me back in 24hrs and took all the details etc etc again and said that they would pass the info to the Cards Dispute Team. They then cheekily sent me a letter saying 'thanks for your feedback your complaint is now resolved and you don't need to do anything more.' Sadly, nothing had changed in terms of my S75 claim - still no contact from the Disputes Team. So, after another 14 days, I contacted the FOS and discussed it with them and got the usual spiel about giving the bank 8 weeks in which to respond. I agreed and explained the letter stating all was resolved - then I sent copies of everything to FOS and they opened a claim. They said later the same day that they had contacted Lloyds requesting information about my case. 24hrs later I got a phone call from the Lloyds Disputes Team (maybe a coincidence) agreeing to pay the claim in full. No challenges to any of the damages (Insurance, VED, Car Hire, storage charges) I added to the purchase price, save asking for a couple of receipts. Money paid into my account withing 24hrs. I'll also update the actual thread regarding the car. There's just one loose end for me though: The guidance notes for the CRA section 20 says: "...when the right to reject is exercised by the consumer, the trader has a duty to refund the consumer and from this time the consumer must make the goods available for collection by the trader..." The trader didn't want to acknowledge any of his responsibilities. He didn't want to give, nor has he given the refund and while I quoted the above to him early on he hasn't tried to claim the goods (yet?). I have made a "claim" under Section 75 of the CCA against the bank who are jointly liable for the breach of contract by the trader. - which they have paid. The bank is not the trader and not a car dealer. The contract for sale was breached and is "at an end", although I'm not quite sure I fully understand that phase and what happens to the title to the goods. Morally, and I guess legally that reverts to the trader. The Bank have not "bought" the car from me. They have asked me to sell it and pass any funds to them. They obviously would like to mitigate their loses, but what authority do they have in this respect - How does the title transfer to them? Where is this in the CCA? Is it their property? I have read elsewhere that consumers have been left with all manor of goods following S75 and have become "Involuntary Bailees". Also there is the (faint) possibility that the trader will challenge the clawback when the Bank's solicitors exercise the indemnity clause of 75(2). I understand he has 45 days in which to do this. Although I have nothing from the bank to know when this date may be. He may, (possibly more likely) accept the hit from the bank and ask for the vehicle back. But then what if it's been sold? He would presumably have a claim, but against who, me or the bank? The bank have asked for "any funds", I shouldn't care really, but when I disclose all of the faults, as I am duty bound, and the values is next to nothing and I get a pittance for it, could I be challenged? Any legal brains with opinion or people with past experience in post S75 procedures etc? Thanks for all the support Dave

Thanks, I will look into the info your reference material. Initial thought though? That could be more complicated. If the 'performance of the obligation' is providing accommodation in Latvia, does that then follow that action has to be taken in Latvia? Maybe I should read more first. Thanks again.

Status update for any interested parties Small claim action on hold pending outcome of Section 75 claim. Still battling away with Halifax/Lloyds Bank credit card disputes team. Opened a Section 75 claim by phone with them on the 25/06. and even now after 2 months, a few phone calls, emails and a formal complaint, I still don't have any written response (even acknowledging safe receipt of my claim) from the very section that is supposed to deal with it. The complaints manager has suggested that Section 75 claims are "very complicated", but I think the only complication comes from trying to find ways to avoid their liability. Unfortunately the Financial Ombudsman says that the Bank can have up to eight weeks in which to resolve the complaint. I'll update again when I have more to report.

Thanks EssCee This relates to a claim against a motor trader as described here. No case is cast iron, but I think the balance of probability is in my favour. I have an independent engineers' report in CPR35 format confirming my claim that the vehicle was likely to be faulty at the time of sale and that they consider it to be the responsibility of the trader. I raised a Section 75 on this with the bank (Halifax/Lloyds)over two months ago now and they have not formally communicated with we yet. They have either ignored me, stalled with they are busy and S75 is a complicated thing to sort out, or blamed technical issues with IT. I have escalated this into a formal complaint with the bank now and just wish they would at least reject my claim (difficult I think with the weight of evidence put forward) so I can move on to the next step. I understand about double dipping so don't expect twice the payout (although all the aggravation and delay makes me think 8% interest is not worth it. assuming a judge would award such in the current economic climate - think it's generally 4% before judgement and statutory thereafter). Sadly, there doesn't seem to be legally binding timescales requiring the bank to respond to a S75. You said, "It does however hinge upon you proving your case to the satisfaction of a Judge where the claim is contested." If the bank don't answer, then they haven't contested, but can I still take action against the bank? and would this be any better than taking action against the trader? Obviously the bank is not (we hope) made of straw. Thanks for your thoughts though. Dave

Hi folks and thanks for taking an interest. I have a consumer issue which I would like some opinions on please? Please forgive me if this is in the wrong place. On 18/07 I selected and booked accommodation for two nights via the Booking.com website for a place called Juras Mols in Bigauņciems Latvia. I was hoping for a few days away from consumer related hassle, ha ha, must have broken a mirror recently. The website clearly says on the accommodation page: 2nd Paragraph: “Guests can enjoy a sauna and a heated indoor pool. ….” 4th Paragraph: “Free Wi-Fi and free private parking are available. …” My children very much enjoy swimming pools when they’re not on the internet and my wife also enjoys saunas and so I booked on the basis of the information supplied. The general facilities tab for the accommodation shows: Pool and wellness • Swimming Pool • Indoor pool (all year) • Fitness centre (Additional Charge) • Sauna Internet • WiFi is available in all areas and is free of charge. All rooms include: “Private bathroom, Hairdryer, Ironing facilities ….” From the rooms available at the time I booked a “Standard Quadruple room with Balcony” containing 2 single beds and 2 bunk beds at a total price of €138 which I paid via a Visa Debit card though the web site. The description of the accommodation and facilities along with the claim on the web site of the 2nd best hotel in Bigauņciems gave me good expectations that the accommodation would suit our needs for an enjoyable break. (laughable really as when I got there, I found there are only 2 hotels in that location ). On arrival we were met by a member of staff, who showed us the common dining room and kitchen and took us to room Num 3 where we were shown the door to our ‘balcony’. This was in fact a metal fire escape leading to the ground. It had close growing conifer trees and overlooked the ‘hotel’ junk yard which I obviously photographed for the record. We asked about the “pool” as we could not see anything that might be a pool and were told that there was no pool and no sauna available. My wife later discovered on the second evening while having a conversation with a member of staff in Russian that there was a sauna in a room marked “Private”, but that (paraphrased), ‘we don’t use it because we have so many guests’. Later we were allowed to store our luggage for a couple of hours between check out and departure in the same Private room. We saw that it was being used as a store room with mattresses and bed linen and was obviously not available to guests. The staff clearly didn’t want us to photograph this room. The only sign of any ‘pool’ was an empty circular ‘plunge pool’ of not more than 1m diameter. Wifi: The facilities says, “WiFi is available in all areas and is free of charge.” The normal expectation of a reasonable person would be that this would provide access to the internet. (Isn’t there something about internet access being a basic human right?). In truth is was sometimes possible to get a Wifi connection, but it did not give Internet access in most parts of the building that I tried. It was useless to us, unless we were in the common dining area on the ground floor. Not a complete disaster, but certainly not what was advertised. We returned from the beach on the first evening around 9 p.m. we found the shower was broken, and judging by the condition of the broken fitting, was of a long standing nature. Not the biggest problem in the world to hold the shower head up, although more difficult for the children to shower on their own, but certainly not a quality experience. Soon thereafter my children complained to me that the hot water in the shower had gone cold. I checked and there was no hot water from the shower or sink. I went to the reception and was told that it was because too many people had used the shower and that the accommodation’s boiler wasn’t able to make enough, but that it would be ok in about an hour. We ate and I checked the water on several occasions up until midnight and it was always cold. I checked again in the morning when it was at best tepid. So I ‘enjoyed’ two invigorating cold showers. I checked again in the late evening following our return from a day trip and again the water was cold. I spoke with another guest who said that they had never had hot water on any evening of their stay. – I took their name and address. This property and the facilities available to guests had clearly been misrepresented. Due to the lack of the advertised facilities: Wifi, proper balcony, indoor pool and sauna etc., I photographed and noted all of the problems and kept a copy of the website pages. I contacted the booking .com customer services on my return and informed them that I considered them to be in breach of contract due to their misrepresentation of the hotel and requested a full refund and claimed damages by way of the cost of a trip to the nearest indoor swimming pool with a sauna. I said that: I believed it was an express term, of the contract for services, that the facilities described would be provided as part of my booking at this hotel. It was also an implied term that the service provided would be done so with reasonable care and skill. Under UK law there are a number of pieces of legislation that provide consumer protection from unscrupulous or negligent traders, namely the: Misrepresentation Act 1967, Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (amended 2014), Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and most recently the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I note now from their website that they disclaim liability for pretty much everything and state that “any dispute arising out of these general terms and conditions and our services shall exclusively be submitted to the competent courts in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.” I said I would be most surprised if there was not similar provision for consumer protection from misrepresentation by a business under the Dutch Civil Code. I also believe that Article 6 of EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTIVE 2005/29/EC – the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive covers misleading business practices (“A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, ….”), is generally applicable in this instance. And in any event the Consumer Right Directive 2013 should still apply. First off they claim to have not received my email. Then they offered 25 Eur compensation without acknowledging or answering any point of my claim. Next they said that it was difficult after the event and again offered 25 Eur. They now claim that: it’s nothing to do with them as they are just an ‘advertiser’, that the hotel does not accept my complaint and again they offered 25 Eur. I have raised the matter on the ODR platform for what it is worth. I have asked Visa about a charge back and they have said, “It’s a very weak claim, but if you want to submit it we’ll take a look.” Misrepresentation of the fraudulent kind is fairly clear in my eyes. I’ve taken a look at the Resolver web site, but that talks about legislation relating to package holidays, which I don’t believe is appropriate for room only bookings. So, please: 1 Am I barking up the wrong tree or being unrealistic in expecting things to be as described? 2 Anybody know about the ‘harmonisation’ of consumer laws across Europe or the Dutch Civil Code? 3 Which is the most appropriate legislation? 4 Anybody had experience of the “European Small Claims Procedure” (I hope I've included the relevant link) Thanks in advance for any info. Dave

Sorry to answer my own thread as it were, but this may be useful to others who, after complaining about something, find that they have 'lost' out via phone charges. This is a prohibited business practice. Always check the number your calling and bypass the Service and Premium rate numbers where possible. The legislation is: The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI:2013/3134) Section 41 Help-line charges over basic rate 41. (1) Where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate. (2) If in those circumstances a consumer who contacts a trader in relation to a contract is bound to pay more than the basic rate, the contract is to be treated as providing for the trader to pay to the consumer any amount by which the charge paid by the consumer for the call is more than the basic rate. Complaints about this 'practice' can also be directed via Citizens Advice. There are a few business sectors, e.g. gambling, purchases from vending machines, which are exempt (No idea why??), but I think it's worth proper complaints if anyone finds themselves having to 'pay' to report bad service. There are a few organisations who offer Customer Services via 0800 numbers and wouldn't it great if all had to! Hope this helps Dave

Thanks, I know there are sometimes alternatives, but I'm interested in knowing/confirming that there is legislation so your second link is much more valuable. Companies sometimes 'hide' their Customer Services behind something else such that they make a revenue out of you calling to request your consumer rights. So they win even if/when they loose. Company give bad service, then profits from your complaint.... Doesn't seem quite fair. Probably why those who proposed that part of CRD or Consumer Contracts Regulations thought it was a good idea to make companies offer Customer Services at no more than local rate. I feel a letter to one or two CEOs is required to politely ask them to conform. (and ask for my 7p/min extra back ) Thanks again!

Greetings all! I could trawl around the net for the answer to this for a few hrs. However, as you guys are usually clued up on this stuff. I though somebody may like to offer some wisdom for the rest of us. It was my understanding that the the Consumer Rights Directive made using Premium rate numbers a no no for calling "Customer Services" and that these call's should be at no more than "local rate". I can't find the legislation though. Was this just a proposal, or a proper 'unfair business practice' and has anybody got the reference/Act etc. The reason I ask, is that I notice that a number of car hire companies only offer "customer Services" via their reservations numbers which are often premium or service rated e.b. 0870 or 0844. Thanks for your help Dave

Seeking some clarification from a legally knowledgeable or experienced person. In the case of breach of contract under the CRA one is entitled to bring an action via the small claims track. If the purchase qualifies; you are also entitled to claim against the Issuing Bank of the Credit Card under Section 75. So, assuming that one has launched down both routes, is it then 'first past the post' as it were? Say, for example, the Bank complies and pays out. I assume they would then claim or have title to the faulty goods. (Is that the case?). What would then be the situation with an in progress action against the trader? Or, what happens to the other action, if for example, the trader suddenly has an epiphany regarding his unreasonableness and coughs up under the CRA? Thanks to any and all who can add to my (and others') understanding on this point.

From experience I would suggest you keep a written log of every event in relation to this situation. Including absolutely all costs associated (You may need it later). Try only to communicate with the trader in writing. So there is a crystal clear trail of the dialogue. Try and keep a copy of the original car advert/details. If you paid for any part of the purchase with a credit card (£100 or more in most cases). Contact your issuing bank, as you may be entitled to a claim under Section 75. Check the CRA 2015, Section 20 (7 & 8 ) In particular. ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/20 ) and also look through the "Explanatory Notes" Tab on the same page. This explains your rights and what the law says should happen. However, try to be realistic, the trader probably knows this, and if he's taken this stance already, you need to consider whether you are prepared to fight it through the courts or walk away with a loss. If you can give us more detail of car, age, any terms given to you e.g. warranty, fault found, cost/likely repair cost, payment etc you can get more specific advice. It may be economically repairable?

Hi HB My main problem is listed here: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?488610-Problem-Vehicle-(Brakes-Instrument-etc)-from-Botley-Car-Centre-Ltd-Southampton&p=5135547#post5135547 Because of not having a vehicle and a lot of impending costs. I hoped to take advantage of Europcar's offer. Unfortunately all I got was stress, a waste of my time and a phone bill. I resorted to a Taxi in the end due to the short notice. So, I want to know if this Internet booking with a confirmation email constitutes a contract and if I can reasonably claim compensation for their incompetence which has caused me consequential loss? I have also just seen something on the Hampshire trading standards website that says vehicle rental is not a contract that can be cancelled under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. See: https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/consumeradvice/goodsandservices/distanceordering (Halfway down under: Contracts you can't cancel.) So, can anyone inform us if vehicle rental is outside of this legislation (and if so, what is it covered by)? One might say, but the value of the contract was just £1, however, there is also a point of principle, in that another's incompetence and failure to deliver has resulted in inconvenience and loss. For which I believe a remedy should be available. Or am I completely wrong? Thanks in advance

Yes. This was a prepaid booking. It's probably computer generated, but cheekily they sent me an email to say, thank you for YOUR cancellation... I think the whole thing is shoddy from start to finish. It is my belief, but I'm not sure, hence my wanting to check here. That a contract did exist and was cancelled/terminated/breached by them? Thanks

Update: Engineer's Report Arrived: Important parts are: O2 "We would recommend the vehicle is not returned to active service use in its present state as this poses a potential danger to any operator and other road users." C1 "We would conclude that the numerous conditions evident with the vehicle would, on the balance of probability, have been present at the point of purchase." C2 "The conditions are considered the responsibility of the selling agents." I intend to submit this report with the S75 Claim to the Bank and ? Particulars of Claim to accompany N1 - Could someone please confirm this needs to go here, or does it get submitted later as evidence? Thanks in advance

Hi, Having aggravation with a second hand car purchase (in another thread). Feeling a bit of financial pressure. Need to get to Stansted Airport so I thought I'd give a One-way for a £1 rental a go. No luck here either it seems. Booked and paid for a £1 one-way rental from Europcar. Online booking was a bit slow but seemed to go ok. Got a confirmation back and all looked fine. 48hrs before I'm due to pick up I get 2 emails saying don't forget to prepare for your rental and please remember your driving licence etc. 3p.m. today, (19hrs before) scheduled pick-up I get a call from an unknown number to my mobile. It's from the pick-up location for the car and the woman says, 'we don't have a car for you tomorrow, so we're cancelling your booking". I explain that with less than 24hrs notice I'm not impressed and can she please give me a written explanation as to why this is? She refuses and says, "I've told you twice we don't have a car for you". So, I call Customer Services which wastes more time. They say 'It's nothing to do with them and you need to speak with "reservations". Another call and more waste, and yep you guessed it, they say, 'nothing to do with us, you need to speak to the branch.' They do say that the branch should be sorting it out and organising another vehicle, but I'm not sure the call agent has got a full understanding of the problem. So out of interest, I go back to the online reservation and find that there's a vehicle available under the same scheme, with the same destination drop off, for the same dates, but from another not too distant branch. Call Customer Services - No use at all. Can't do anything about it. Verbal acknowledgement that it's not good Customer Service, but they can't do anything. So, I book the vehicle from the alternate location via the web site even though it will be more time consuming for me. Then I go back to the reservation system and there it now shows a vehicle available from the original location for return to Stansted. Just like the one that was cancelled a couple of hours earlier. (I have copied all of this information) Oh. In case anyone else is trying to use this system. It comes up with a "How can we Help You - Web Chat/we'll phone you back" dialog. - This goes to Barcelona and a very nice call agent who is absolutely no use as they can't do anything with these bookings. Question then please: The rental agreement - I believe it's only binding after you have signed at pick-up? , but does a contract exits before this and are they in breach of contract? Certainly their T&C says a whole lot about what the bailee can and can't and how if you don't show for your rental they can charge you £85. Which rather suggests they would like to impose a 'fine' for a customer breaching a contract or have I got that all wrong? Have help greatly appreciated.

Hi, I'm not trying to knock you. You're obviously having a rough time with this, but it's not the best example of a business letter. Try adopting this sort of structure/format (can be used for almost anything): Situation - Whatever it is - I bought from you, car (make model) registration index (this is important) forget the minutiae of things like tow bar unless they relate to the problem. Complication - What happened, what they did etc can't fix it, which makes it of unsatisfactory quality Action - What you will do (Reject under CRA Short-term Right (if still applicable). What you want them to do, refund/replace, whatever and when you want it (reasonably) done by Politeness - be nice and ask for them to please respond (in writing - you want things formally recorded) within n days. If you want a model/template to start with that you can make your own then the Which Consumer people have a draft here: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-rejecting-a-second-hand-car-bought-from-a-dealer Its for a second hand deal, but you can adapt it (try to keep to the structure above) I'm sure. Alternatively, given the value of deal, and potentially claim, you may be better off engaging a legal. I'm sorry, but it's late and I didn't reread everything, but have you spoken with the motor ombudsman? Is the garage a member?