Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'section 75'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 10 results

  1. Hi not sure if this in the correct place, but hopefully it's ok. We purchased 2 sofa's from the Sofagroup, also known as Oakfurniturewarehouse on eBay 8 months ago that we have issues with. After 5 months the seams started to become frayed and ripped along the tops of both sofas. We was also convinced that the sofas weren't 100% real leather sofas as described on the listing as they now advertise the exact sofas on their Facebook page stating its part Faux leather. We contacted the retailer who said we had to pay for the repairs to the sofas and said we were wrong about it not being real leather. We refused to pay for the repair and they have since ignored us. We then contacted our credit card provider to begin a section 75 claim. We have provided the original listing stating its 100% real leather, photos of the damage and proof of purchase and such. They then required us to get an independent report on the sofas. We paid for a smart report and the inspector has confirmed that we were miss sold as only the wearing parts are real leather. But we now have some concerns, that I hope someone might be able to help us with. 1, it was implied during the inspection that unless you pay £2000 plus for a leather sofa then you will have a substandard sofa anyway. Is that correct? 2, the inspection was just some photos of the damage, confirmation that is wasn't all leather by touch, and a photo of the eBay listing. Is that all they do? It only lasted 10 minutes if that. 3, how long do we have to give our credit card provider to respond? It is coming up for 10 weeks now since initial contact. 4, Do we recover the cost of the report from the Credit card provider? Thanks
  2. I'm afraid I'm terribly confused by the situation I'm in and can't seem to find a straight answer anywhere. I'll start with a brief outline with dates as close as possible to accurate.. Nov 2013 - I purchase a massage chair from Sasaki (credit card deposit, rest on finance) Feb 2014 - chair is delivered Feb 2014 - I contact Sasaki stating chair unsuitable. Doesn't fit my build. They were given full info before purchase Mar 2014 - Sasaki agree to look into replacing, will 'get back to me' May 2014 - I start section 75 with Hitachi Finance as nothing heard from Sasaki Jun 2014 - Sasaki agree to replace and upgrade when a new model is available Aug 2014 - new model available, delivery delayed by my illness Jan 2015 - new chair is delivered Mar 2015 - new chair fails mechanically after 6 weeks What I want.. A refund, no more messing What I'm getting Sasaki say one thing when a call is made on my behalf (not getting anything etc) Hitachi say something else (Sasaki awaiting an engineer to visit me) I've made it clear I want a refund, Hitachi say that's their decision and they may decide I'm not entitled. Sasaki are sending an engineer to report on what the problem is, but according to Hitachi this person is going to be able to negotiate as well as maintain/repair the chair, but back to Sasaki and the engineer has no power to negotiate whatsoever. The initial chair was replaced as being not fit for purpose (I was, basically, too big for it at 6ft 2). The second chair has failed in three areas mechanically. The foot/leg rest will neither raise nor extend and the recliner will no longer bring the chair upright (the foot rest instead of being on the floor is actually 14 inches off the floor, making the chair unusable). Can anyone clear up as to exactly what I'm entitled to, what I can push for and what is supposed to be happening. I was under the impression that as the replacement had not made right the issue (ie the second chair is broken) that I could ask for a full refund and that was that. I know I might be wrong though. Can I just say to Hitachi that I want a refund and that's it?
  3. Hi Guys, hope you can shed some light on my options. I've hit a dead end with the credit card company I booked a cruise in feb 14 on the phone. a major reason why I chose that particular cruise liner was due to the facilities they provide for children. I went at great length with the booking person on what they provide and whether my child would be accepted. I knew that the policy of the cruise liner was that the child must be 3 and my child was going to be 3 weeks shy of the 3rd b'day. the booking person exact words were 'the policy is from 3 but given that she is potty trained and that she is so close to her 3rd birthday you should speak to the staff on board' As I know how americans (this was an American ship) are 'computer says no sort of people' I asked what would happen if my child is not accepted to the kids club and the booking person responded 'you will have to be present with your child '. this was not a problem for me as I had experienced another liner where the policy was 2 years and we simply had to be in the kids club whilst our child was entertained by the staff with the other children. within an hour of going on board and having visited the kids club it transpired that not only was our child not going to be accepted in the kids club but that our only 'option' was to stay in a separate room (away from the kids club) which is apparently designated for under 3's with staff not even allowed to enter that particular room! now, for those of you who think this is trivial, all the family was honestly looking forward to this cruise so that we can have a break from our child who, whilst lovely requires constant interaction and loves to interact with children CONSTANTLY. we really felt that this well earned holiday was completely ruined particularly when our daughter was constantly telling us 'lets go to the kids club' and we had to constantly tell her that it is closed. anyway, to cut a long story short we made a very strong complaint on board that very day and it took 4 days of arguing with them to finally get them to put in writing that there is no way she is going to be accepted based on their policy and that 'you were misinformed by your estate agent.' on my return I immediately put a formal complaint and the rep I spoke to (on booking) tried phoned to attempt to sweet talk me. I was having none of it and requested she puts everything in writing and explain why she told me one thing which transpired to be completely false. She told me that she will look into it and I even have a few e mails going to & fro to tell me that she's taking care of it and will get back to me (their policy 28 days). I waited patiently for them to reply to no avail. when I was (after about 1 month) that they were not going to address my complaint I made a section 75 claim with the credit card company. MBNA took it 'seriously' and spent 3 months investigating it (in that time they froze the interest on the balance) and giving me a call periodically telling me that they are still looking into it as the cruise company did not provide them with the required information. finally this week I received a letter from mbna stating that they have investigate the matter and ruled against a refund after the cruise company informed them that they had heard back my conversation at time of booking and that the cruise company are satisfied that the rep had informed me correctly about the facilities provided for children and that they are not willing to accept liability. Now I am quite lost as to my next step! It would definitely help receiving a copy of the recordings but I need to get this money back quick (£4.5K) and I can already see this taking for ever to get a resolution. I'm happy to go to court but should it be against mbna, or mbna & cruise company? and I would need to proof what was said in the conversation?! your informed insight and various opinions would be greatly appreciated. I hate it when big companies play games with people who save hard to spend their hard earned money!!! thanks in advance
  4. Have a look and let me know what you think. Any help will be appreciated. http://s911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/zentrix9/MR%20VIRGIN%20MNBA/ I will be sending a SAR request tomorrow to see what I get back
  5. Hi All, I use section 75 a lot. Unfortunately i have found that the credit card companies deliberately make it as difficult as possible to claim. This ranges from using low quality staff with no legal skills or experience and arming them with counter policy to claiming letters are lost in post. I have found taking matters to the FOS is unreliable - and depends on who you get - and very often they make judgements counter to law. I note that Section 75 is spread across CAG. I have put this tread together to try and catch as many section 75 experiences as possible, and hope we can use this to present a more united front against the credit card companies. Maybe, if we are lucky, we can even expose some of the bad practices, and help each other make quick and successful claim. Many thanks Ed
  6. Back in February 2013 I bought a car from a commercial garage. It was inherently faulty from the start. I attempted with the authority of the garage to get it repaired but new faults kept appearing, so I returned it under SOGA. The garage agreed to a partially refund the £9000 I paid by offering £7500. I had the car for a month and it was in and out of the garage for repair 6 times so I refused their offer. They then got quite nasty with a "take the money or take us to court" attitude so I referred it to my credit card provider under Section 75 of CCA. They told me they thought the garage was being entirely reasonable and rejected my claim. I then took it to the FOS, who upheld my claim and ordered the credit card company to refund me at the beginning of December. They responded after the deadline that the FOS gave them, saying that they were liaising with the merchant. They were given an extension until last Monday to respond, they didn't. Now my complaint has been passed on to be reviewed by an ombudsman. Do I just have to wait for their decision or can I take the merchant and/or the credit card company to court, with the decision of the FOS adjudicator as evidence?
  7. Greetings, I wonder of one or other of you knowledgeable persons could help by throwing some light on our situation. We were advised by Santander on Friday that they had accepted and had started processing our Section 75 Claim which we made in respect of a hot tub that we purchased some few months back. Since the claim started, we have had no contact from the retailer. The problem arises as there now appears to be a difference in opinion between Santander (credit card issuer) and our home insurance company's legal department. On the one hand Santander are advising that title to the hot tub remains with us after completion of the payment from them to us, whilst the legal dept. over at Direct Line (home insurer's legal cover department) are advising that we are subject to the Torts Act, sections 12 & 13. How do I find out which guidance is correct . .. although I would suspect the the guys n gals over at Direct Line might be favourites here ?? Many thanks
  8. Hello, I recently purchased a gas boiler that was brand new but old stock and heavily discounted from 7k - 1.5k On the face of it a great deal complete with warranty from a quality manufacturer, on offer from a supplier I use at least once a year, this time for my personal property. In a nutshell the boiler arrived minus gas shut off valve, minus controller, connection pipes and manuals, guarantees etc. The boiler was being installed and was required urgently due to a new arrival, this was made clear at the time of purchase and that time was of the essence.. It took numerous emails and calls and texts to get in dribs and drabs all the various components to enable the installation to be completed, This was a 300kg boiler (domestic complete with cylinder in a single package -in case you're wondering). Due to the missing parts the boiler took some time to install which increased costs not to mention the inconvenience of all the chasing of the parts and being without hot water and heating etc for the new arrival meant staying elsewhere. I claimed for costs from the supplier/manufacturer (two different entities) The manufacturer finally offered without prejudice another unit but to remove the first one and then to have to dispose of it and then install the second unit would have just increased costs further so this was rejected (what am I going to do with 2 boilers 300kg each 2m tall 70cm square?. My claim for costs is far less than the cost of the purchase about half. A claim has been made against the CC under sec75 for the cost of the boiler and costs, however they are stating that they are reliant on goodwill of the 3rd parties bank and the retailer to respond as they need me to provide proof of breach of contract or misrepresentation but have temporarily refunded the 1.5k only and wont entertain the consequential loss. They go on to say they are totally reliant on the goodwill because the goods are in my possession and there is no documentary evidence to prove the goods are faulty, therefore they can't guarantee the outcome. The unit was supplied faulty by virtue the parts required for it to operate were missing surely it was faulty, the correspondence covers this from both sides my raising the complaint and their accepting that parts were missing.. It seems clear to me there was a breach, the goods were not as described ie a new complete boiler, they were missing various components critical to the installation and commissioning of the appliance, without them the boiler could not be fully installed or operated. This is clear and accepted by the 3rd parties, that the missing parts and delays were unacceptable and the goods were not as described. The CC has had copies of TCs and all email correspondence some 30 pages of documents were sent and yet the CC is finding it difficult to establish documentary evidence of a breach has taken place. The boiler is currently installed 6 weeks after its arrival yet it is still missing the original manuals and warranty documents.. what are my options? I am aware that deductions can be made for any use of the appliance subsequently..
  9. I desperately need some help to understand how Section 75 works. I paid part of a Solicitors bill by credit card for services rendered to my wife (the services was in their name but paid for by me as a primary cardholder). My wife is a secondary cardholder on my credit card account. We discover some 2 months later that the Solicitors had misrepresented my wife and charged for services that they had failed to provide. I have sought to make a claim against my credit card with documentary evidence but they are now citing that they are not liable as the service was for my wife's benefit. My point is that we paid for this using MY credit card, I made the payment using my credit card (not my wife's) on the basis of information the Solicitors had provided me in a face to face meeting (where my wife could not attend) and the Solicitors had categorically told me a pack of lies. I paid the invoice rendered which forms the crux of the dispute with them. Can anyone help on this?
  10. Firstly - I'm a newbie here - so apologies if I ask the same as others have !!! I had a credit card with MBNA for around 15 years before I used the card to purchase a car (cost approx £9k) in March 2011. The transaction was made by myself with the car dealer that advertised it, I called the dealer and read out my card details over the telephone for the car that I had seen a description of on the internet. The car dealer delivered the car and upon arrival it was clearly not as described in a number of ways (some damage and no full MoT to mention a couple) and this is clearly provable against the internet description where it stated full MoT and no mention of any damage. The supplying car dealer was clearly in the business of selling cars as he had about 6 other cars advertised for sale at the time and I've kept copies of all these descriptions in case they are required later. So under distance selling regulations, I complained to the supplying car dealer and asked for a refund, made the car available for them to collect but they refused to accept the car back and refused to collect the car. I immediately made a section 75 claim to MBNA. MBNA stated the disputed amount would be put on hold until the matter was resolved. Sensing there was going to be a fight I cancelled the direct debit so that the disputed amount would be "on hold" with MBNA and not with myself and wrote to MBNA telling them that was my course of action and supplied copies of all information receipts/descriptions/correspondence with the car dealer. Eventually MBNA refused the section 75 claim, for a couple of spurious reasons. One was broken debtor-creditor relationship - MBNA claimed the car dealer was selling the car on behalf of the previous owner !! clearly MBNA don't seem to understand how car dealers sell cars and this one was an obviously blatant attempt by the car dealer to attempt to avoid responsibility. The other was that MBNA claimed that I knew about the damage prior to delivery and that I should have checked the car before purchasing. I demonstrated to them that I relied upon the description and could not have been expected to travel from Oxford to Scotland to check the car over before deciding to purchase. It was clear to me that I had provided sufficient information and evidence to support my section 75 claim, and I repeatedly insisted that MBNA honour their obligations under section 75. However, they refused and set on a course of pursuing me for what they claimed was an outstanding balance and what I repeatedly claimed was the disputed "on hold" amount. I wrote to them on several occasions suggesting that we should put the matter in front of a judge to decide. Eventually they went through the process sent me lots of demanding letters and default notices which I always replied to and politely reminded them that the outstanding balance is subject to a Section 75 claim and that if they felt strongly about it then I would be happy to talk it all over in front of a judge. MBNA's last letter they stated that they would be selling the debt. I immediately wrote back to MBNA and informed them that they do not have my permission to give or sell any of my personal data to anyone. At this point I made a claim through the financial ombudsman, which is currently in progress. In the meantime, MBNA have sold the debt to DLC who appear oblivious to the section 75 claim and are now harrassing me with letters and phone calls. I have written to DLC telling them to stop harrassing me and referred them back to MBNA, stating that it appears that they have obtained my personal data in contravention of the data protection act. Clearly there are several strands to this situation, I feel strongly that this is a valid section 75 claim, but it seems that MBNA have simply avoided justice and I have been left with a blemished credit history. My first concern is that the claim via the financial ombudsman may be too late. My second concern is that having not paid the balance when I left the "on hold" balance with MBNA may have undermined the claim to some extent. Comments, the experience of others in similar situations and all advice is appreciated. (I will add/update as and when I get updates) thanks !
×
×
  • Create New...